The Valorization of Economic Assets and Social Capacities of the Historic Farmhouse System in Peri-Urban Allocation: A Sample of Application of the Corporate Social Responsible (CSR) Approach

Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Nowadays the strategies underlying agricultural and environmental policies (the Lisbon strategy “EU 2020”)—in particular the Sixth Environment Action Programme 2010: Our Future, Our Choice—emphasize the need to create a market that is more environmentally friendly and “responsible”. The recent debate shows that the “green” variable in financial management is placed at the center of employers’ thoughts on both the discretionary dimension (culture, ethics and responsibility) and the normative-prescriptive dimension. Some positive experiences reveal the following topics: (1) the approaches of multifunctional agriculture in synergy with the themes of the European debate on Corporate Social Responsibility; (2) the definition of a new business framework; and (3) the management model oriented to stakeholders and to ethical management. The vision of the green entrepreneur in managing the company is an innovative point of view with respect to legal obligations and falls within the sphere of responsibility for environmental management. The literature, in fact, focuses on: (1) a responsible business-management model based on the “stakeholder” model, as opposed to the “shareholder model”, where the creation of value is not confined to equity holders of risk, but in which companies assume management objectives that bring mutual benefit to the community; and (2) the development of specific items in the analysis of financial statements that take into account aspects of environmental responsibility. In accord with this, the paper analyzes the application of the principles of the “responsible” management process to an Italian case study and to underline which effects they have on the scenario of enhancement of the historical farmhouse system in Volpiano (Canavese, in the metropolitan region of Turin, Italy). The coexistence of historic rural settlement patterns and new housing and industrial estates is rather common and widespread, but this case is paradigmatic, because in the territory of Volpiano the applied measures and principles followed a paradigm change in dealing with this historic farmhouse structures coexisting among new housing and industrial estates: this is an issue of great importance and not only at the local level. In fact, the final project scenario was subject to operational feasibility analysis using traditional instruments. Some specific reflections were made to estimate the financial investment for restoration and re-functioning, on the timing of site preparation and management data, and on the identification of financing channels (PSR—Programma di Sviluppo Rurale and the European CAP—Common Agricultural Policy). Lastly, feasibility is linked to the economic social responsibility, with elements of originality in the test performance and new assumptions concerning the risk/return ratio.

Keywords

Peri-urban farming Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Discounted cash flow analysis Socio-ecological accounting Historical farmhouse system 

References

  1. Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. J. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social responsibility: Self-reported disclosures as a method of measuring corporate social involvement. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 501–515.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, R. W. (1973). How companies respond to social demands. Harvard Business Review, 51(4), 88–98.Google Scholar
  3. Ackerman, R. W., & Bauer, R. A. (1976). Corporate social responsiveness. Reston, VA: Reston.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: Perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and urbanization, 15(1), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aimone, S., Cassibba, L., Cagliero, R., Milanetto, L., & Novelli, S. (2006). Multifunzionalità dell’azienda agricola. IRES: Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., & Hatfield, J. D. (1985). An empirical investigation of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 446–463.Google Scholar
  7. Backman, J. (Ed.). (1975). Social responsibility and accountability. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  9. Bowman, E. H., & Haire, M. (1975). A strategic posture toward corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 18, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carroll, A. B. (Ed.). (1977). Managing corporate social responsibility. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  11. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, A. B. (1981). Business and society: Managing corporate social performance. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  13. Carroll, A. B. (1983, July 15). Corporate social responsibility: Will industry respond to cutbacks in social program funding? Vital Speeches of the Day, 49, 604–608.Google Scholar
  14. Carroll, A. B. (1991, July/August). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carroll, A. B. (1994). Social issues in management research: Experts’ views, analysis and commentary. Business and Society, 33, 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiel, Hillel J., & Beer, Randall D. (1997). The brain has a body: Adaptive behavior emerges from interactions of nervous system, body and environment. Trends in Neurosciences, 20(12), 553–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 42–56.Google Scholar
  18. Committee for Economic Development. (1971). Social responsibilities of business corporations. New York: Author.Google Scholar
  19. Coscia, C., Fregonara, E., & Rolando, D. (2015). Project management and briefing: Supporting tools for territorial planning. The case of disposal of military properties. Territorio, 73, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coscia, C., & Curto, R. (2017). Valorising in the absence of public resources and weak markets: The case of Ivrea, the 20th century industrial city. In Stanghellini S., et al. (Eds.), Appraisal: From theory to practice results of SIEV 2015 (pp. 79–99). Berlino: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Coscia, C., & De Filippi, F. (2016). L’uso di piattaforme digitali collaborative nella prospettiva di un’amministrazione condivisa. Il progetto Miramap a Torino (ITA version). The use of collaborative digital platforms in the perspective of shared administration. The MiraMap project in Turin (EN version). TerritorioItalia, 1, 61–104.Google Scholar
  22. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dalton, D. R., & Cosier, R. A. (1982, May/June). The four faces of social responsibility. Business Horizons, 23, 19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, K. (1960, Spring). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davis, K. (1967, Winter). Understanding the social responsibility puzzle: What does the businessman owe to society? Business Horizons, 10, 45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322.Google Scholar
  27. Davis, K., & Blomstrom, R. L. (1966). Business and its environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  28. Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  29. Drucker, P. F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eells, R., & Walton, C. (1974). Conceptual foundations of business (3rd ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  31. Eilbert, H., & Parket, I. R. (1973, August). The current status of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 16, 514.Google Scholar
  32. Epstein, E. M. (1987). The corporate social policy process: Beyond business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate social responsiveness. California Management Review, 29, 99–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fitch, H. G. (1976). Achieving corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 1, 38–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  36. Fregonara, E. (2017). Methodologies for supporting sustainability in energy and buildings. The contribution of Project Economic Evaluation. Energy Procedia, 111C, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fregonara, E., Giordano, R., Rolando, D., & Tulliani, J. M. (2016). Integrating environmental and economic sustainability in new building construction and retrofits. The Journal of Urban Technology, 23(4), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fregonara, E., Giordano, R., Ferrando, D. G., & Pattono, S. (2017). Economic-environmental indicators to support investment decisions: A focus on the buildings’ end-of-life stage. Buildings, 7(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
  39. Granata, M. F. (2013). Aspetti valutativi nella costruzione del sistema informativo per la gestione ambientale dell’azienda. Valori e Valutazioni. VI, 10, 117–132.Google Scholar
  40. Hřebíček, J., et al. (2012). Corporate performance indicators for agriculture and food processing sector. Acta universitatis agriculturae et silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 60(4), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heald, M. (1970). The social responsibilities of business: Company and community, 1900–1960. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Holmes, S. L. (1976, June). Executive perceptions of corporate social responsibility. Business Horizons, 19, 34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Johnson, H. L. (1971). Business in contemporary society: Framework and issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  44. Jones, T. M. (1980, Spring). Corporate social responsibility revisited, redefined. California Management Review, 22, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kok, W. (2004). Facing the challenge: The Lisbon strategy for growth and employment. Report from the High Level Group chaired by Wim Kok. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  46. Kreps, T. J. (1940). Measurement of the social performance of business. In An investigation of concentration of economic power for the temporary national economic committee (Monograph No. 7). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  47. Lichfield, N. (1996). Community impact evaluation. London: Bristol, UCL Press.Google Scholar
  48. Lichfield, N. (2005). Community impact evaluation: Principles and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Manne, H. G., & Wallich, H. C. (1972). The modern corporation and social responsibility. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  50. Mangialardo, A., & Micelli, E. (2017). Processi partecipati per la valorizzazione del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico: il ruolo del capitale sociale e delle politiche pubbliche. LaborEst, 14, 52–57.Google Scholar
  51. Preston, L. E. (Ed.). (1978). Research in corporate social performance and policy (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  52. Preston, L. E., & Post, J. E. (1975). Private management and public policy: The principle of public responsibility. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  53. Selekman, B. (1959). A moral philosophy for business. New York: McGraw-Hill, Google Scholar.Google Scholar
  54. Sethi, S. P. (1975). Dimensions of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17, 58–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Steiner, G. A. (1971). Business and society. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  56. Strand, R. (1983). A systems paradigm of organizational adaptations to the social environment. Academy of Management Review, 8, 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Swanson, D. L. (1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tuzzolino, F., & Armandi, B. R. (1981). A need-hierarchy framework for assessing corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 6, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walton, C. C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  60. Wartick, S. L., & Cochran, P. L. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilson, G. A. (2009). The spatiality of multifunctional agriculture: A human geography perspective. Geoforum, 40(2), 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corporate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature. Academy of Management Review, 4, 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Architettura e DesignPolitecnico di Torino, (DAD)TurinItaly

Personalised recommendations