Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Tools and Standards for Reporting

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Environmental Accounting and Reporting

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

  • 1882 Accesses

Abstract

In the field of environmental and ethical-social accountability models present in Italy, it is possible to distinguish between process standards (SA 8000; Accountability model 1000, Q-RES project, Copenhagen Charter) and product standards (Bagnoli 2010). The latter include the GRI model; the GBS model, which is the subject of this chapter; the unified standard ABI/IBS; the Federcasse model; and the Italian Ministry of Labor and Social Policy (CSR-SC Project 2003) (see Baldarelli 2007; Biglietti 2004). The management systems are placed alongside the accountability models and integrated reporting models (see Chap. 3).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Management systems include quality standards ISO 9000 and VISION 2000, environmental standards ISO 14000 and the EMAS 761/2001 regulation, the standard for information safety ISO 27001:2005, the standard for social responsibility ISO 26000, and the standard for safety and health in the workplace, OHSAS 18000.

  2. 2.

    The integrated sustainability reporting models have become more widespread and include sustainability evaluation and reporting system realized by SPACE (SERS-SPACE) and the IIRC model (International Integrated Reporting Committee).

  3. 3.

    The establishment of the group was promoted by Prof. R. Marziantonio together with the consulting company KPMG, SMAER, and Strategia d’Immagine. See Marziantonio and Tagliente (2003).

  4. 4.

    Both research and standard documents are available online, in addition to paper versions. The revised Standard (2013) is available in the English language.

  5. 5.

    In particular, the reference to international accounting principles is relative to qualitative characteristics envisaged by the IASB Framework (essential or compulsory prerequisites) of voluntary applications of socio-environmental reporting. IAS 1 highlights the importance of voluntary documents although they do not fall within the disciplined system of the IFRS, particularly in the realm of specific sectors and the environmental context of reference. Some principles can be extended to voluntary documents: understandability, relevance, reliability (which includes prudence, neutrality, completeness, and focus on form), and comparability. Such principles are to be found both in the GRI (principles of guarantee in quality reporting) and in GBS (drafting principles of social reporting). See Cardillo and Molina (2011).

  6. 6.

    Among these can be cited the document which supplies guidelines on presenting information about personnel and the environment to be provided within a management report, in accordance with the new draft of Art. 2428 of the Italian Civil Code.

  7. 7.

    Gray, Owen, and Adams define CSR as a process of communicating the social and environmental effect of organizations’ economic action to particular interest groups within society and society at large. As such, it involves extending the accountability of organizations beyond the traditional role of providing a financial account to the owner of capital, in particular shareholders (accounting) (Gray et al. 1996).

  8. 8.

    Regarding social reporting models, see also Chiesi et al. (2000), Hinna (2002), Rusconi and Dorigatti (2005), Rusconi (2006a, b), and Costa (2007).

  9. 9.

    In 1994, the State Railway published its own social report, followed in 1997 by Agip Petroli.

  10. 10.

    www.duodo.it/It/homepage.htm

  11. 11.

    www.rgassociati.it /

  12. 12.

    With this document, presented in 2003, the Italian Ministry of Labor and Political Sciences contributed to defining the definition process of a CSR standard for the evaluation of CSR and the measurement of performance in this sphere, with particular attention to SMEs. The standard proposed by the government seeks to develop a voluntary instrument, designed to guide companies in improving their social behaviors; favor a process of model and data collection standardization, as well as the measurement and communication of CSR performance; and guarantee greater credibility of corporate communication to protect consumers and benefit collectivity.

  13. 13.

    The London Benchmarking Group is a project developed in 1994 by the Corporate Citizenship Company to design a model which allows companies to measure and evaluate the impact and support of activity for the development of the local community through three important areas: donations, social investment, trading initiatives. For more details, see www.lbg-online.net.

  14. 14.

    www.istud.it/up_media/ricerche/agenda.pdf

  15. 15.

    www.isvi.org

  16. 16.

    By added value is meant the surplus of value, which compared to the means initially adopted, the company is able to create thanks to its activity. This concept will be picked up again in the following paragraphs. For greater detail, see Rusconi (1988), Matacena (1984), and Gabrovec Mei (2002).

  17. 17.

    The standard setters include several organizations, i.e., ABI-Istituto Europeo per il Bilancio Sociale, Amnesty International, Business Impact Task Force-Business in the Community, Center of Ethics Law and Economics, Centre des Jeunes Dirigeants et des acteurs de l’Economie Sociale, Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, Deutch Accounting Standard Board, Global Reporting Initiative, OCSE, and ONU.

  18. 18.

    The social report must describe the system of governance adopted by the organization; the role, position (as well as functions, nomination, and compensation), and tasks of the board, chairman, and CEO; the presence and number of independent and/or nonexecutive directors; the adoption of codes of conduct; the description of the internal auditing and control system; the description of the organizational process that has led to the definition of the mission and ethical framework; and the identification of the stakeholders and relative expectations and their integration in the strategic plan.

  19. 19.

    At a macroeconomic level, the value added represents a comprehensive measure of national income.

  20. 20.

    For more details, see GBS (2013): 17–23.

  21. 21.

    For a detailed description of the aspects and indicators referred to each stakeholder category, see GBS (2013): 35–51.

  22. 22.

    These costs are related to the impact of a company’s operations on the environment; they do not actually prevent, reduce, or repair damage to the environment.

  23. 23.

    In this respect, see GBS (2013), Appendix 5.3 (p. 59 and following).

  24. 24.

    Actions and proposals include UNEP (http://www.unep.org/eon/Annual-evalls/index.asp; PERI (Public Environmental Reporting Initiative); ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) – http://iccwbo.org/iccfjj/index.html, in collaboration with WICE (World Industry Council for the Environment – http://www.iisd.org http://www.iisd.org), Deloitte Touche, and KPMG. We also have to cite FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei – http://www.feem.it), which has drawn up the national guidelines for the corporate environmental report, and ERNST & YOUNG (www.ey.com) which has released guidelines for the certification of environmental reports and activities carried out by the chemical sector both at a European level (CEFIC – http://www.cefic.be/Files/publications/OIFR/Guidancepublication.doc) and national one (FERDERCHIMICA – www.federchimica.it). In Italy, the main promoters of these tools are the Italian Ministry for Environmental and territorial protection (http://www.minambiente.it), ANPA (now APAT http://www.apat.gov.it), ENEA (http://www.enea.it), and the EMAS committee.

  25. 25.

    GRI, www.globalreporting.org; CRS-SC, www.welfare.gov.it; SAM, www.sam-group.com; E-CAPITAL PARTNERS, www.e-cpartners.com; AVANZI, www.avanzi.org; ACCOUNTABILITY, www.accountability.org.uk/; UNEP, www.unep.org

  26. 26.

    The AA 1000 is used for reporting as it is a process standard and gives the most systematic description of phases and their sequence (planning, accounting, auditing, and reporting).

  27. 27.

    The document contains (see page No. 28) models of reporting accountability comparisons (AA1000, GRI, GBS) through synoptic tables of homogenous stakeholder groups.

  28. 28.

    On 10 July 2000, the FEE published the position paper “Towards a Generally Accepted Treatment for Environmental Reporting.” In Italy in 2004, the National Council of Chartered Accountants published the paper “Communication and the Environment” which illustrates the content of the “Sustainability Report” according to the GRI model and implementation guidelines to follow in the drafting and audit of the document. In March 2005, the National Council of Chartered Accountants published the document entitled “Environmental Communication in the Financial Statement.”

  29. 29.

    For more details, see GBS, Research Document No. 3, 2007b: 31–32.

  30. 30.

    See GBS, Research Document No. 3 (2007b): 47–49, Tab. 7, on page 12.

  31. 31.

    See www.cndc.it, www.consrag.it, Federation des Experts Comptables www.fee.be, and IFAC www.ifac.org.

  32. 32.

    Willis, “The role,” cit, page 233

  33. 33.

    Infatti si legga: “ A Boston, Massachusetts coalition of over 50 investor, environmental, religious, labor and public interest groups with over 50 corporate subscribers to its (CERES) principles for environmentally responsible conduct (Willis, “The role,” cit, page 237, nota (1)). Per ulteriori approfondimenti si rinvia alla più recente versione del: Sustainability Reporting Guidelines-G4 – www.globalreporting.org/reporting/g4/

  34. 34.

    Il GRI è un modello: “…che segue l’impostazione di trattare con uguale dignità, in un unico contesto, le dimensioni economica, sociale ed ecologica dell’attività aziendale”… “Insomma, è un documento che rappresenta un’evoluzione dei rendiconti sociali ed ambientali e che risponde alla missione dell’azienda contemporanea di creare valore prestando costante attenzione alla dignità dell’uomo ed alla qualità della vita.” (Paris, rendiconto, cit, page 159).

  35. 35.

    Ci sembra in passato, di aver già letto qualcosa di simile, in merito all’Istituto Battelle di Ginevra, in merito si rinvia a: Juan Bonal, “Le tableaux de bord du bilan social de Battelle,” Revue Francaise de gestion, nov.dèc, 1977, pp. 180–185.

  36. 36.

    “Infatti si legga: Early in 1998, the decision had been taken to strive for an even more ambitious goal: to address not just environmental performance reporting as had been the original aim, but also the social and economic (excluding financial accounting). Ancora nota (2):” The GRI has no intention of getting into the business of setting accounting standards dimensions of sustainability” (Willis, “The role,” cit, page 234).

  37. 37.

    The OIC (Organismo Italiano di Contabilità – Italian Accounting Committee) is an organization made up of both private and public subjects which finds its origins in the need to cohesively express national requests in accounting matters. Constituted in November 2001 as a foundation, the OIC, in carrying out its functions, provides for:

    • Issuing the accounting principles for the drawing up of financial statements for which application of the international accounting principles is not foreseen (the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors)

    • Taking part in activities of processing the international accounting principles, by providing technical support to the competent international organizations and by coordinating its own work with the activities of other European standard setters

    • Assisting the legislator in issuing legislation as regards accounting and related matters

    • Promoting accounting culture

    (For further details, please visit www.fondazioneoic.eu.)

  38. 38.

    On the 5 December 2012, EFRAG (European Financial Reporting Advisory Group) issued a draft comment paper regarding “emission trading schemes” in answer to the document up for consultation by the French standard setter (ANC) which tackles the accounting aspects of gray certificates even for those companies which apply IAS/IFRS principles. Such an initiative is included in the re-sparking of the debate concerning the emission of a specific international accounting principle regarding emission rights. Considering what has been said beforehand, we clarify here that the OIC 8 Accounting Principle on gray certificates may not be taken as reference by companies who draw up their financial statements on the basis of the IAS/IFRS principles (www.fondazioneoic.eu).

  39. 39.

    Credit evaluation is regulated by the OIC 15 Accounting Principle – Payables to which we refer you for further deeper details, viewing the website www.fondazioneoic.eu.

  40. 40.

    Concerning this aspect, see Chap. 2.

  41. 41.

    As regards the accounting recording of a payable, point 58 of the accounting principle in question establishes that wherever the requirements for certainly defining the liability to be recorded in the balance sheet, the company must estimate a value, recording it at entry B3) Provisions.

  42. 42.

    The evaluation of payables is disciplined in the Principio Contabile OIC 19 “I fondi per rischi e oneri – Il trattamento di fine rapporto di lavoro subordinato – I debiti” (OIC 19 Accounting Principle entitled “Provisions – Employees’ termination benefits provision – Payables”) to which we refer for further details; please see the website www.fondazioneoic.eu.

  43. 43.

    The legislator disciplines the evaluation of inventory sub Art. 2426, point 9, which says: “le rimanenze, i titoli e le attività finanziarie che non costituiscono immobilizzazioni sono iscritti al costo di acquisto o di produzione, calcolato il n. 1), ovvero al valore di realizzazione desumibile dall’andamento del mercato, se minore; tale minor valore non può essere mantenuto nei successivi bilanci se sono venuti meno i motivi” (the inventory, bonds, and financial activities which do not constitute fixed assets are reported according to the cost of purchase or production, calculated the No. 1) or according to the current market value inferable from market trend, if less; such lesser value cannot be kept in the following statement of accounts if reasons for maintaining it are lacking).

  44. 44.

    Concerning the method to calculate cost, point 10 of Article 2426 of the Italian Civil Code states that the cost of fungible goods may be calculated using the method of the weighted average or using those “first in, first out” or “last in, first out”; if the value, thus obtained, notably differs from current costs at the end of the financial year, the difference must be indicated, by category of goods, in the accompanying note.

  45. 45.

    The aforementioned cost configurations are dealt with in the Principio Contabile OIC 13 “Le rimanenze di magazzino” (OIC 13 Accounting Principle – The inventory) to which we refer for further details; www.fondazioneoic.eu.

  46. 46.

    The OIC 20 Accounting Principle, Chapter I, Section 7.2., also provides for what here follows: “The market, as is defined above, expresses values that are different throughout the course of time. We need, therefore, to establish the temporal reference point which expresses a ‘trend’ in the market at the date of drawing up the statement of accounts.”

  47. 47.

    OIC – Organismo Italiano di Contabilità/Italian Accounting Committee (2013), Principio contabile OIC 8 – Le quote di emissione di gas ad effetto serra (OIC 8 Accounting Principle – Quotas of greenhouse gas emission), p. 7, Sections 23 and 24 (www.fondazioneoic.eu).

  48. 48.

    OIC – Italian Accounting Committee (2013), Principio contabile OIC 8 (Le quote di emissione di gas ad effetto serra, p. 7, Section 31) (OIC 8 Accounting Principle – Emission quotas of greenhouse gases) (www.fondazioneoic.eu).

  49. 49.

    OIC – Italian Accounting Committee (2013), Principio contabile OIC 8 (Le quote di emissione di gas ad effetto serra, p. 7, Section 32) (OIC 8 Accounting Principle – Emission quotas of greenhouse gases) (www.fondazioneoic.eu)

  50. 50.

    The prepaid expenses/deferred income are a quota of cost/revenues which, even though it has been reported in accounting in the just-ended financial year, it regards the future financial year. Prepaid expense = suspended cost = cost that regards the future financial year.

  51. 51.

    Contingencies are those extraordinary income components, that is, costs and revenues which are not of a recurrent nature and are not generated by the everyday activity carried on by the company.

  52. 52.

    OIC – Organismo Italiano di Contabilità (2013), Principio contabile OIC 8 – Le quote di emissione di gas ad effetto serra (OIC 8 Accounting Principle – Emission quotas of greenhouse gases) p. 8, Section 33 (www.fondazioneoic.eu)

  53. 53.

    OIC—Italian Accounting Committee (2013), OIC 8 Accounting Principle – Emission quotas of greenhouse gases p. 8, Section 34 (www.fondazioneoic.eu)

  54. 54.

    The evaluation of payables and receivables is disciplined, respectively, in the OIC 19 Accounting Principle “Provisions – Employees’ termination benefits provision – Payables” and in the OIC 15 Accounting Principle “Receivables” where we suggest to refer for further detailed information, visiting the website www.fondazioneoic.eu.

  55. 55.

    Evaluation criteria of emission quotas for trading companies are identical to those foreseen for green certificates. For closer examination, see Sect. 4.2.3.

  56. 56.

    BSI (1992) “BSI 7750, Specification for environmental management systems,” British Standards Institution, London

  57. 57.

    Council Regulation No. 1836/93, 29 June 1993

  58. 58.

    COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No. 1836/93 of 29 June 1993; Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 168/ 1; 10. 7. 93

  59. 59.

    Council Regulation No. 761/2001 (EU 2001)

  60. 60.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32009R1221&from=EN

  61. 61.

    Commission decision of 4 March 2013 establishing a user’s guide setting out steps needed to participate in EMAS (EC) No. 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organizations in a community Eco-Management Environment and Audit (EMAS) (notified under document number C (2013) 1114); L 76/4, 5

  62. 62.

    Draft Final Report by Milieu Ltd. and Risk and Policy Analysis Ltd. for DG, Environment of the European Commission p. 31, October 2009

  63. 63.

    http://www.ec.org/en/presentation/portal.html

  64. 64.

    http://www.ecomapping.com/en/tools-methodes/pros-cons.html

  65. 65.

    EMAS “easy” for small and medium enterprises – EMAS guide, p. 9; http://eco-forces-bgtr.eu/documents/ecomapping/GUIDE_maps_emas-easy-en.pdf

  66. 66.

    COMMISSION DECISION of 4 March 2013 establishing a user’s guide setting out steps needed to participate in EMAS (EC) No. 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organizations in a community eco-management environment and audit (EMAS) (notified under document number C (2013) 1114); L 76/4, 5

  67. 67.

    EMAS INFO Information about the European Environmental Management System published by the Office of the German EMAS Advisory Board Office of the German EMAS Advisory Board (UGA) Status: August 2010

  68. 68.

    Decision of the European Commission on 4 March 2013 for the creation of a user’s guide setting out steps needed to participate in EMAS (EC) No. 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and the Council on the voluntary participation of organizations in a community eco-management environmental and audit (EMAS) (notified under document number C (2013) 1114) (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/131/EU) L 76/10

  69. 69.

    Official Journal of the European Union, 12.10.2006, L 281/17, ANNEX I DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIABLES

  70. 70.

    Official Journal of the European Union, 12.10.2006, L 281/17, ANNEX I DEFINITION OF OBJECTIVES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIABLES

  71. 71.

    COMMISSION DECISION of 4 March 2013 establishing a user’s guide setting out steps needed to participate in EMAS (EC) No. 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organizations in a community eco-management environment and audit (EMAS) (notified under document number C (2013) 1114) (text with EEA relevance) (2013/131/EU) L 76/11; Baxter, Martin, Environmental Management Systems, The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment available at https://www.iema.net/system/files/ebriefingems_0.doc

  72. 72.

    Hunt, D and Johnson, C (1995) Environmental Management Systems: Principles and Practice, McGraw-Hill, 1995, quoted under Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A Handbook, The Centre for Corporate Environmental Management (CCEM), March 1998

  73. 73.

    Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A Handbook, The Centre for Corporate Environmental Management (CCEM), European Environment Agency, 1998 p. 34

  74. 74.

    Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A Handbook, The Centre for Corporate Environmental Management (CCEM), European Environment Agency, 1998 p.12

  75. 75.

    Marsanich, Andrea, Environmental Indicators in EMAS Environmental Statements, p. 6.; http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL1998/NDL1998-026.pdf

  76. 76.

    Environmental Management Tools for SMEs: A Handbook, The Centre for Corporate Environmental Management (CCEM), European Environment Agency, 1998 p. 69

  77. 77.

    Серов Г.П. Экологический аудит. Концептуальные и организационно-правовые основы. – М.: Экзамен, 2000, с.448

  78. 78.

    ISO 19011:2011 Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing available on http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=50675

  79. 79.

    An Introductory Guide to EMAS, DEFRA 2010, UK, p. 12

  80. 80.

    COMMISSION DECISION of 4 March 2013 establishing a user’s guide setting out steps needed to participate in EMAS (EC) No. 1221/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the voluntary participation by organizations in a community eco-management environment and audit (EMAS) (notified under document number C (2013) 1114) (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/131/EU) L 76/20

  81. 81.

    International Organization for Standardization is the most important global organization for the definition of technical standards. It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, and its members are the national organisms of standardization. In Italy, the ISO standards are diffused by UNI (Italian National Body of Unification), which takes part in representing Italy in ISO activities. See http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html.

  82. 82.

    The work of preparing international standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees. Draft international standards adopted by the technical committees are circulated to the member bodies for voting. Each member body interested in a subject for which a technical committee has been established has the right to be represented on that committee. International standard requires approval by at least 75% of the member bodies casting a vote. International organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, in liaison with ISO, also take part in the work.

  83. 83.

    http://www.iso.org/iso_catalogue/managment_and_leadership_standards_responsibility/sr_discovering_iso260000.htm (sampled 24 August 2011)

  84. 84.

    More than a month later the UNI (Italian National Body of Unification) published the translation of ISO 26000 which became a national guideline. The Italian delegation has been present since the beginning, when the Technical Management Board ISO decided to start its work on the subject. See www.uni.com, “La ISO 26000 sulla responsabilità sociale in pubblicazione a Novembre.”

  85. 85.

    See http://www.iso.org/iso/social_responsibility.

  86. 86.

    See www.qualitiamocom/incantiere/nuova9400html.

  87. 87.

    European Commission Statement “Renewed Strategy of the European Union for the period 2011–2014 in terms of corporate social responsibility”, 25 October 2011

  88. 88.

    See Gray et al. (2014), Chapter 11.

  89. 89.

    ISO 26000 condemns every form of discrimination concerning race, language, color, age, sex, religion, nationality, ethnic and social background, disability, pregnancy, trade union or political party membership, family status, and health and economic conditions. Those having the greatest protection are women, the disabled, and immigrants. See Sibilio (2011c): 6–7.

  90. 90.

    For a comprehensive discussion on social and community issues, see Gray et al. (2014), Chapter 5 (104–133).

  91. 91.

    Of the 200 recommendations contained in the standard/norm, for Hera, 50 are applicable and extremely significant, another 100 are relevant, and over two thirds of the total are significant, while the remainder have low relevance and are not applicable.

  92. 92.

    The right of each single country to modify the ISO standard is recognized in order to make it more fitting to national needs.

References

  • AccountAbility. (2008). Accountability 1000: AccountAbility principles standard. London: Accountability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Frost, G. (2008). Integrating sustainability reporting into management practices. Accounting Forums, 32(4)288–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C. A., & Mc Nicholas, P. (2007). Making a difference: Sustainability reporting, accountability and organizational change. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 20(3)382–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A. (2003). Fostering values in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 45, 15–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argandoña, A. (2008). Anthropological and ethical foundations of organization theory. In S. Gregg & J. R. Stoner Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking business management. Examining the foundations of business education (pp. 22–37)Princeton, NJ: The Witherspoon Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagnoli, L. (2010). Responsabilità sociale e modelli di misurazione. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldarelli, M. G. (2007). New prospectives in inter-company relations, social responsibility (CSR) and social, ethical and environmental accounting in Italy by way of the Government CSR-SC project: Theory and praxis. Economia Aziendale 2000web, 1, 1–26. http://www.ea2000.it

  • Balzarova, M., & Castka, P. (2012). Stakeholders’ influence and contribution to social standards development: The case of multiple stakeholder approach to ISO 26000 development. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2)265–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beda, A., & Bodo, R. (2004). La responsabilità sociale di impresa. Strumenti e strategie per uno sviluppo sostenibile dell’economia. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglietti, E. (Ed.). (2004). Responsabilit`a Sociale delle Imprese. Il Social Statement del progetto CSR-SC. Assindustria Ancona, 5 aprile 2005. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M., & Murray, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility (2nd ed.)Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boström, M., & Hallström, K. T. (2013). Global multi-stakeholder standard setters: How fragile are they? Journal of Global Ethics, 9(1)93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, J., Ebbage, A., & Lunn, R. (Eds.). (2011). Environmental management in organizations: The IEMA handbook (2nd ed.)London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. T. (2005). Corporate integrity. Rethinking organizational ethics and leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L. (2009). The economy of communion. Toward a multi-dimensional economic culture. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L., & Zamagni, S. (2004). Economia civile. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhr, N., & Gray, R. (2012). Environmental management, measurement and accounting: Information for decision and control? In T. Bansal & A. Hoffman (Eds.), Oxford handbook of business and the environment (pp. 425–443)Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campedelli, B. (Ed.). (2005). Reporting aziendale e sostenibilità. I nuovi orizzonti del bilancio sociale. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campedelli, B. & Cantele, S. (2004). Bilancio sociale e gestione aziendale responsabile: alcune riflessioni. Rivista Italiana di Ragioneria e di Economia Aziendale, 9/10, sett-ott: 514–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardillo, E., & Molina, S. (2011). IAS-IFRS e rendicontazione socio-ambientale: una verifica della estendibilità dei principi generali del Framework alla valutazione della qualità dei documenti volontari. Financial Reporting, 1, 37–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrol, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July/August, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, C. (Ed.). (2003). Il bilancio sociale nell’evoluzione dei rapporti tra economia e società. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catturi, G. (2003). L’azienda universale. L’idea forza, la morfologia, e la fisiologia. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catturi, G. (2007). La “valorialità” aziendale: Vol. I. La determinazione e la rilevazione del valore “creato”: presupposti teorici e metodologici. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catturi, G., & Di Toro, P. (Eds.). (1999). Interessi, motivazioni e valori degli “attori” aziendali. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceruti, S. (2011). UNI ISO 26000, prime riflessioni sull’applicazione. U&C, 2, 35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesi, A. M. (2000). Il bilancio sociale: stakeholder e responsabilità sociale d’impresa. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesi, A. M. (2005). Dialogo e partecipazione degli stakeholder (stakeholder management) In L. Sacconi (Ed.), Guida critica alla responsabilità sociale d’impresa (pp. 647–654)Roma: Bancaria Editrice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesi, A. M., Martinelli, A., & Pellegatta, M. (2000). Il Bilancio sociale. Stakeholder e responsabilità sociale dell’impresa. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cilona, O. (2009). Responsabilità sociale delle organizzazioni. U&C, 2, 40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coda, V. (1988). L’orientamento strategico dell’impresa. Torino: Utet.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collier, J., & Esteban, R. (2000). Systemic leadership: Ethical and effective. The Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 21(4)207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E. (2007). Modelli di bilancio sociale. In M. Andreaus (Ed.), La rendicontazione sociale nei gruppi aziendali (pp. 41–74)Milano: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowton, C. J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(7)553–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Deus, R. M., Seles, B. M. R. P., & Vieira, K. R. O. (2014). Organizations and ISO 26000: Review of concepts, motivators, and barriers to implementation | [As organizações e a ISO 26000: Revisão dos conceitos, dos motivadores e das barreiras de implementação] Gestao e Producao, 21(4)793–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2001a). A sustainable Europe for a better world: A European Union strategy for sustainable development. COM(2001)264 final, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2001b). CSR Europe. Promoting a European framework for corporate social responsibility. Green Paper. COM(2001)366 final, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2002). Responsabilità sociale delle imprese: Un contributo delle imprese allo sviluppo sostenibile. (2002)347 def, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • EU. (2001). Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Green Paper. COM(2001) 366 final, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Decision No 1600, 22 July, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (EC). (2011 October 25). A renewed EU strategy 2011–14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. COM(2011) 681 final, Brussels.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrante, A. (2009). Responsabilità sociale delle organizzazioni. U&C, 2, 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fossati, S., Luoni, L., & Tettamanzi, P. (2009). Il bilancio sociale e la comunicazione con gli stakeholder. Milano: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. Journal of Behavioural Economics, 19(4)337–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E. R., Rusconi, G., & Dorigatti, M. (2007). Teoria degli stakeholder. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrovec Mei, O. (1993). Il bilancio sociale. Amministrazione e Finanza, 6, Marzo-Aprile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrovec Mei, O. (1999 April). Social and environmental responsibility – accountability and reporting in the EU. Proceedings of the IIa International conference Economic System of the European Union and Adjustment of the Republic of Croatia, Lovran.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrovec Mei, O. (2002). Bilancio Sociale e Valore Aggiunto. In L. Hinna (Ed.), Il bilancio sociale (pp. 212–225). Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabrovec Mei, O. (2004). Valore aggiunto e bilancio sociale: l’esperienza dello standard GBS. In G. Rusconi & M. Dorigatti (Eds.), Teoria generale del bilancio sociale e applicazioni pratiche. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S. S., & Zhang, J. J. (2001). A comparative study of stakeholder engagement approaches in social auditing. In J. Andriof & M. McIntosh (Eds.), Perspectives on corporate citizenship (pp. 239–255)Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, S., & Zhang, J. J. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6)722–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2005). Social accountability in the public sector. Standard. La rendicontazione sociale nel settore pubblico. Standard di base. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007a). Corporate governance and social responsibility. Corporate Governance e responsabilità sociale. Research Document No. 4. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007b). Environmental report and added value. Reporting Ambientale e valore aggiunto. Research Document No. 3. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007c). Guidelines for social reporting audit. Linee guida per la revisione del bilancio sociale. Research Document No. 1. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007d). Performance metrics for reporting and sustainability rating. Indicatori di performance per il reporting e il rating di sostenibilità. Research Document No. 2. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007e). Performance metrics for social reporting. Gli indicatori di performance nella rendicontazione sociale. Research Document No. 5. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007f). Social reporting for the Regions. La rendicontazione sociale per le Regioni. Research Document No. 6. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2007g). The social report. Basic standard. Guiding principles for drafting the social report. Il Bilancio sociale. Standard di base. Principi di redazione del bilancio sociale. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2008a). Social reporting for healthcare companies and authorities. La rendicontazione sociale delle aziende sanitarie. Research Document No. 9. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2008b). Social reporting for intangibles. La rendicontazione sociale degli intangibili. Research Document No. 8. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2008c). Social reporting for universities. La rendicontazione sociale nelle Università. Research Document No. 7. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2009). Social reporting for non-profit organizations. La rendicontazione sociale del non profit. Research Document No. 10. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2010). Social and environmental reporting for corporate groups. Il bilancio socio-ambientale nei gruppi aziendali. Research Document No. 11. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2011). Territorial reporting: Aims, process and indicators (territorial social reporting). La rendicontazione territoriale: le finalità, il processo, gli indicatori. Research Document No. 12. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • GBS. (2013). Standard renewed version. Principles and Standard for Social Reporting. Il Bilancio sociale. Standard di base. Nuova Versione. The National Association for Scientific Research on the Social Reporting. Milano: Giuffré. Retrieved from http://www.gruppobilanciosociale.org

  • Gray, R., Owen, D., & Adams, C. A. (1996). Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, R., Adams, C. A., & Owen, D. (2014). Accountability, social responsibility and sustainability. Accounting for society and the environment. Harlow: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • GRI. (2009 July 15). Number of companies worldwide reporting on their sustainability performance reaches record high, yet still a minority. Press release. Retrieved from http://www.globalreporting.org/NewsEventsPress//PressResources/PressRelease_14_July2006_1000GRIReports.htm

  • Hahn, R. (2013). ISO 26000 and the standardization of strategic management processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and Environment, 22, 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Weidtmann, C. (2016). Transnational governance, deliberative democracy, and the legitimacy of ISO 26000: Analyzing the case of a global multistakeholder process. Business and Society, 55(1)90–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, T. (2013). The ISO 26000 guidance on social responsibility international standard: What are the business governance implications? Corporate Governance, 13(3)305–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, A. (Ed.). (2011). Understanding ISO 26000: A Practical guide to social responsibility. London: BSI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, A. (2012). Standards for change? ISO 26000 and sustainable development. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinna, L. (2002). Il bilancio sociale. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO (2012). ISO 26000 post-publication survey 2012. Geneva: ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 26000. (2010a). Guidance on social responsibility (ISO 26000). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization ISO Central Secretariat. Final Draft, First edition, Geneva, published on 1 November 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 26000. (2010b). ISO 26000 project overview. ISO 26000 Social Responsibility (pp. 1–16). Geneva: International Organization for Standardization ISO Central Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO 26000. (2014). 26000 Guidance on social responsibility. Discovering ISO 26000. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization ISO Central Secretariat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. (2011 August 29). Constructing sustainability through CSR: A critical appraisal of ISO 26000. University of Oslo Faculty of Law, Research Paper No. 2011-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katamba, D., Nkiko, C. M., Kazooba, C. T., Kemeza, I., & Mpisi, B. S. (2014). Community involvement and development: An inter-marriage of ISO 26000 and millennium development goals. International Journal of Social Economics, 41(9)837–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2011). International survey of corporate responsibility reporting 2011. The definitive snapshot of CR reporting. KPMG, November 2011. http://www.csr.ee/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/KPMHG-International-Survey-of-CSR-2011.pdf

  • Manetti, G. (2006). Il triple bottom line reporting. Dal coinvolgimento degli stakeholder alle verifiche esterne. Milano: FrancoAngeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchini, P. L., & Tibiletti, V. (Eds.). (2004). Bilancio sociale e valori d’impresa. Parma: MUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marziantonio, R., & Tagliente, F. (2003). Il bilancio sociale della gestione d’impresa responsabile. Milano: Maggioli Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matacena, A. (1984). Impresa e ambiente. Il “bilancio sociale”. Bologna: Clueb.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matacena, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility and accountability: Some glosses. In M. G. Baldarelli (Ed.), Civil economy, democracy, transparency and social and environmental accounting research role (pp. 7–59)Milano: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattana, G. (2010). In dirittura d’arrivo le ISO 26000 sulla RS. Qualità, 3, 36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattana, G. (2011). La nuova ISO 26000 sulla RS. Qualità, 2, 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Business ethics in action. Seeking human excellence in organizations. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1)89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mellahai, K., Morrell, K., & Wood, G. (2010). The ethical business: Challenges and controversies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercadante, L. (2009). Responsabilità sociale delle organizzazioni. U&C, 2, 42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molteni, M. (2006). Terzo Rapporto sulla Responsabilità Sociale d’Impresa in Italia. Milano: ISVI e ALTIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monteverdi, A. (2011). UNI ISO 26000. Prime riflessioni sull’applicazione. U&C, 2, 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moratis, L. (2016a). Out of the ordinary? Appraising ISO 26000’s CSR definition. International Journal of Law and Management, 58(1)26–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moratis, L. (2016b). Signaling strategies for ISO 26000: A firm-level approach. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 36(5)512–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moratis, L., & Cochius, T. (2011). ISO 26000. The business guide to the new standard on social responsibility. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueckenberger, U., & Jastram, S. (2010). Transnational norm-building networks and the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(2), 223–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, L., & Fairbrass, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility (CSR) models and theories in stakeholder dialogue. Journals of Business Ethics, 83(4)745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64(3)627–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osburg, T., & Schmidpeter, R. (2013). Social innovation: Solutions for a sustainable future. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (1977). The reporting of company financial results and employees. London: ICAEW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, G. E. (1993). Corporate power and responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrini, M. (2007a). Human capital convergences in intellectual capital and sustainability reports. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(2)346–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrini, M. (2007b). I bilanci di sostenibilità e delle risorse intangibili: il processo di integrazione nelle aziende italiane. Economia Aziendale 2000web, 1, 117–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera, O. (2008). How material is ISO 26000 social responsibility to small and medium-sized enterprises? Winnipeg, MB: International Institute for Sustainable Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrini, F., Pogutz, S., & Tencati, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in Italy: The state of the art. Journal of Business Strategies, 23(1)65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Principato, G. L. (2011). Responsabile Reporting di Sostenibilità Hera SpA. In Monteverdi, A. UNI ISO 26000. Prime riflessioni sull’applicazione. U&C, 2, 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Principato, G. L., & Astone, A. (2011). Un’applicazione operativa delle ISO 26000. Qualità, 2, 14–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulejo, M. L. (1996). Esperienze in tema di bilancio sociale: “Il modello francese”. Torino: G. Giappichelli Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulejo, M. L. (2002). Il bilancio sociale in Italia tra teoria e prassi. In L. Hinna (Ed.), Il bilancio sociale. Milano: Il Sole 24Ore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricci, P., Siboni, B., & Nardo, M. T. (2014). La rendicontazione di sostenibilità. Roma: Rirea.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, G. (1988). Il bilancio sociale d’impresa. Problemi e prospettive. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, G. (1997). Etica e impresa. Un’analisi economico-aziendale. Bologna: Clueb.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, G. (2006a). Il bilancio sociale. Economia, etica e responsabilità dell’impresa. Roma: Ediesse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, G. (2006b). Stakeholders and documents of the direct accountability of companies. In P. Arena (Ed.), The corporate social responsibility, scientific development and implementation (pp. 235–255)Roma: Aracne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusconi, G., & Dorigatti, M. (2005). Modelli di rendicontazione etico-sociale e applicazioni pratiche. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi, R. (2005). CSR: verso un modello allargato di corporate governance. In L. Sacconi (Ed.), Guida critica alla responsabilità sociale e al governo d’impresa (pp. 113–136)Roma: Bancaria Editrice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarelli, S. (2007). Etica e responsabilità sociale nell’impresa. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibilio, S. (2011a). I sette temi della responsabilità sociale. Il primo: la governance. U&C, 1, 11–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibilio, S. (2011b). I sette temi della responsabilità sociale. Il quarto: l’ambiente. U&C, 8, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibilio, S. (2011c). I sette temi della responsabilità sociale. Il secondo: i diritti umani. U&C, 2, 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibilio, S. (2011d). I sette temi della responsabilità sociale. Terzo capitolo: rapporti e condizioni di lavoro. U&C, 4, 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (2007). Corporate governance and accountability (2nd ed.)Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • SustainAbility. (2004). Risk and opportunity, best practice in non-financial reporting. London: Sustainability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanno, A. (2009). Responsabilità sociale delle organizzazioni. U&C, 2, 38–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toppinen, A., Virtanen, A., Mayer, A., & Tuppura, A. (2015a). Standardizing social responsibility via ISO 26000: Empirical insights from the forest industry. Sustainable Development, 23, 153–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toppinen, A., Hänninen, V., & Lähtinen, K. (2015b). ISO 26000 in the assessment of CSR communication quality: CEO letters and social media in the global pulp and paper industry. Social Responsibility Journal, 11(4)702–715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unerman, J., Bebbington, J., & O’Dwyer, B. (Eds.). (2007). Sustainability accounting and accountability. Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI ISO 26000. (2011). UNI ISO 26000, prime riflessioni sull’applicazione. U&C, 2, 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI&Sodalitas. (2014). UNI ISO 26000: la responsabilità sociale in concreto. Milano: Uni.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI/PdR 18:2016. (2016 April 29). Social responsibility in organizations – guidance to the application of UNI ISO 26000. ICS 03.100.01.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valota, P. (2009). Responsabilità sociale delle organizzazioni. U&C, 2, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, S. (2007a). Sistemi di misurazione del capitale intellettuale d’azienda. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, S. (2007b). Il bilancio del capitale intellettuale. In G. Fabbrini & A. Montrone (Eds.), Intangible assets. Principi contabili, modalità di reporting e tecniche di valutazione (pp. 441–504)F.Angeli: Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, S. (2012). Perfomance aziendale e performance del capitale intellettuale. Milano: F.Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veltri, S., & Nardo, M. T. (2013). Integrating corporate social responsibility and intellectual capital report: A small sample research. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 4(1)5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermiglio, F. (Ed.). (2000). Nuovi strumenti di comunicazione aziendale. Confronto di esperienze in tema di bilancio sociale. Giappichelli: Torino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermiglio, F. (2005). Il modello GBS-Gruppo di Studio per il Bilancio Sociale. In G. Rusconi & M. Dorigatti (Eds.), Modelli di rendicontazione etico-sociale e applicazioni pratiche. F.Angeli: Milano.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viviani, M. (1999). Lo specchio magico. Il bilancio sociale e l’evoluzione delle imprese. Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Weltzien Hoivik, H. (2011). Embedding CSR as a learning and knowledge creating process: The case for SMEs in Norway. Journal of Management Development, 30(10)1067–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T. (2014). Beyond CSR – What will the 5th Generation be? (within the maturity Model). Paper presented at the First Annual GCG-CSR Conference 2014, Surrey, 14–15 August, Guilford, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T., & Beranek, F. (2015). Corporate resilience – 5th generation? In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, M. Fifka, L. Zu, & R. Schimdpeter (Eds.), Dictionary of corporate social responsibility (pp. 118–119)Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, T., & Schmidpeter, R. (2015). Maturity model of CSR. In S. O. Idowu, N. Capaldi, M. Fifka, L. Zu, & R. Schimdpeter (Eds.), Dictionary of corporate social responsibility (pp. 312–313)Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • WCED—World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zamagni, S. (Ed.). (1995). The economics of altruism. Hants: E. Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinenko, A., Rovira, M. R., & Montiel, I. (2015). The fit of the social responsibility standard ISO 26000 within other CSR instruments: Redundant or complementary? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 6(4)498–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Maria-Gabriella Baldarelli

  2. Department of Economics Society & Politics, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, Italy

    Mara Del Baldo

  3. Department of Economics and Business Administration, New Bulgarian University, Sofia, Bulgaria

    Ninel Nesheva-Kiosseva

Authors
  1. Maria-Gabriella Baldarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mara Del Baldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ninel Nesheva-Kiosseva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baldarelli, MG., Del Baldo, M., Nesheva-Kiosseva, N. (2017). Some Tools and Standards for Reporting. In: Environmental Accounting and Reporting. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50918-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation