This paper sheds light on the regulatory background of responsible organisational behaviour. Several governments are stepping in with their commitment for corporate governance as they are setting their social and environmental responsibility agenda through different frameworks. Many countries are following the guidelines of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These international organisations have provided highly recognised international benchmarks for transparent and accountable practices. This paper also made reference to some of the relevant European Union(EU) Expert Group recommendations for non-financial reporting. It transpires from the pertinent literature review that businesses are encouraged to adopt the reporting instruments of nongovernmental organisations. Finally, this paper concludes by proposing that the way forward is to have a more proactive government regulation which creates shared value by contributing to the wider societal and environmental objectives.

1. Valuing Non-Financial Performance
and Sustainability Reporting
Dr Mark Anthony Camilleri PhD (Edin.)
Aarhus University, Denmark - 19th September, 2013.

2. Overview of this Presentation
• Background of Regulatory Instruments
• Intergovernmental Benchmarks and
Guidelines
• The National Governments’ Regulatory Level
• Non-Governmental Regulatory Tools
• The Way Forward
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

3. Background of Regulatory
Instruments
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

4. • In the mid 1990s, Robert Reich in his capacity as the
American Secretary of Labour has asked the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) to develop a
social label that would certify to consumers which
products comply with the ILO labour standards.
• The ILO has limited itself to establish minimum
standards for working conditions and these have
been agreed to by numerous governments.
• The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) had issued guidelines for
multi-national corporations (MNCs). They were also
entirely voluntary in nature.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

5. “It is against this background of weak
instruments and failed initiatives at the
international level that NGOs have begun to
target MNCs with increasing frequency and
vigour in recent years”, (Newell, 2002:910).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

6. • The growth of global CSR engagement can also be
viewed in the context of the business developments
within the international trade law:
– For instance, a number of bilateral and regional trade
agreements were entered into force in North American and
European countries. They contained such provisions
about the inclusion of labour, human rights and
environmental standards in trade agreements.
– However, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) did
not necessitate the countries to conform to any
product labelling standards.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

7. Intergovernmental
Benchmarks and Guidelines
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

8. International Labour Organisation
• ILO promotes dialogue between government,
workers’ and employers’ organisations.
• It provides assistance and tools to better
understand the labour dimension of CSR (ILO
Helpdesk Url., 2013).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

9. © Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

10. The Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development
• The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) promotes policies which improve the economic
growth and social cohesion.
• OECD guides policy makers, regulators, and market
participants in improving their legal, institutional, and
regulatory frameworks.
• OECD’s principles have shown an acceptable level of
adaptability in varying legal, economic, and cultural contexts as
they have served as the basis in various reform initiatives by
different governments and have been taken up by the
private sector in different countries (Jesover and Kirkpatrick,
2005). © Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

11. Basic Principles of Corporate
Governance
(Source: Jamali et al. 2008 ; OECD, 1999)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

12. European Union’s
Recommendations (I)
• According to the EU Commission Expert Group (2012), non-
financial reporting enables investors to contribute to a
more efficient allocation of capital, and to better achieve
longer-term investment goals.
• It can also help to make enterprises more accountable and
contribute to higher levels of citizen trust in business.
• Several experts have supported the idea of a principles-
based approach, rather than a detailed, rules-based one.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

13. European Union’s
Recommendations (II)
• The experts stressed that improving materiality
of reports is useful to address the comparability
issues.
• They advocated that the companies' boards
should have ownership on reporting, in order to
make it relevant and effective.
• There are significant differences in mentalities
across different member states, and within
economic sectors (EU Commission, 2011).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

14. The National Government
Regulatory Level
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

15. Actors and Exchange Arenas (Source, Midttun, 2009)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

16. The Relational Framework
• There are different expectations and perceptions
within each stakeholder relationship, which have
to be addressed to develop an appropriate CSR
policy (Albareda et al., 2008).
• Essentially, this relational approach is based on the
idea that recent changes and patterns affecting the
economic and political structure may transform
the roles and capacities of various social agents
(Albareda et al., 2009).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

17. “Our approach is to encourage and
incentivise the adoption of CSR, through
best practice guidance, and where
appropriate, intelligent (soft) regulation
and fiscal incentives”.
(UK’s Department of Business Innovation
and Skills, 2012).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

18. Non-Governmental (NGOs)
Regulatory Tools
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

19. • The social and environmental accountability standards
represent voluntary predefined norms and procedures for
organisational behaviour and are often valid on a global level
(Rasche, 2010; Smith, 2002:21).
• Such accountability standards reflect a shift towards a ‘quasi-
regulation’ which are based on substantive and reflexive law
approaches (Rasche et al., 2008).
– A ‘substantive’ (outcome-based) law approach is regulated by
prescribing predefined outcomes;
– A ‘reflexive’ (process-based) law approach is regulated by prescribing
procedures to determine outcomes in a discursive way (see Hess, 1999,
2001). *
Non-Financial Accountability
Standards (I)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

20. Non-Financial Accountability
Standards (II)
• Performance-oriented standards are more generic in
their approach:
– Such standards focus on specific areas such as human rights, labour
standards, environmental protection and the like (see Jamali, 2008).
– Many NGOs are providing a certification for compliance with proposed
rules and guidelines as they incorporate their own independent
monitoring systems (see Berkhout et al., 2008; Koenig-Archibugi, 2004).
• Process-oriented standards are applied across
particular industries.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

21. A Non-Exhaustive List of
Standards and Reporting
Instruments:
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

22. Accountability (AA1000)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

23. British Assessment
(OHSAS 18001)
•
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

24. Eco-management and Audit
Scheme (EMAS)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

25. Fair Labor Association (FLA)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

26. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

27. International Standards Organisation
ISO 26000 - Social Responsibility
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

28. International Standards Organisation
(ISO14001) – Environmental
Management System
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

29. Social Accountability (SA8000)
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

30. The United Nations Global
Compact
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

31. The Way Forward
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

32. Creating Shared Value through
Regulation
• Governments can play a pro-active role by setting the
regulatory social and environmental standards.
– The introduction of standards, phase-in periods and utilisation of
innovative technologies can bring operational efficiencies and cost
savings to the businesses.
– Such measures may improve the environment, and increase the
organisations’ competitiveness, simultaneously (Porter and Kramer,
2011; Van der Woerd and Van Den Brink (2004).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

33. Key Recommendations
• Governments may assist businesses by fostering the right
type of environment for responsible behaviours; through
various incentives (e.g. grants, tax relief, sustainable
reporting guidelines, frequent audits et cetera).
• The proposed regulatory changes can involve the
efficient and timely reporting of sustainable (responsible)
practices.
• The reporting may be primarily aimed at the larger
businesses.
• Of course, the governments will have to provide structured
compliance procedures (and support where necessary).
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

34. Key Recommendations (II)
• The CSR practices and their measurement,
their reporting and accreditation should be
as clear, concise and understandable as
possible for the businesses.
• The governments’ reporting standards and
guidelines may be drawn from international
reporting instruments (e.g. ISO, SA, AA, and
GRI).
• Businesses should be given adequate and
sufficient time (and resources) to comply
with the governments' requirements.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

35. References
• Accountability (2011). AA1000: Stakeholder Engagement Standard (AA1000SES). Url: http://www.accountability.org/about-us/publications/aa1000-1.html accessed online
on the 30th March 2012.
• Albareda, L, Lozano, J.M., Tencati, A., Midttun, A. and Perrini, F. (2008). The changing role of governments in corporate social responsibility: drivers and responses.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, pp. 347–363
• Albareda, L., Arenas, D., Lozano, J., (2009). The role of NGOs in CSR: Mutual perceptions among stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, pp. 175–197.
• Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Wagner, M. and Tyteca, D. (2008). Are EMS Environmentally Effective? The Link between Environmental Management Systems and Environmental
Performance in European Companies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(2), pp. 259–283.
• British Assessment (2011). OHSAS 18001 Certification. Url: http://www.british-assessment.co.uk/ohsas-18001-certification-services.htm accessed on the 3rd December
2011.
• Department for Business, Innovation and Skills - UK (2012). Url:http://bis.ecgroup.net/Publications/BusinessLaw/CorporateGovernance/041112.aspx accessed on the 3rd
February 2012.
• EMAS (2009). EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme. Url: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/index_en.htm accessed on the 25th February 2012.European
Commission (2011). A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility. Url: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7010.
• EU Commission Expert Group (2012). Sustainable and responsible business European Expert Group on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and SMEs. Url:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/corporate-social-responsibility/sme/european-expert-group/index_en.htm accessed on the 12th January 2012.
• Fair Labor Association (2012). Url: http://www.fairlabor.org/about-us accessed on the 4th May 2012.
• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) (2009). Url: https://www.globalreporting.org/Information/about-gri/Pages/default.aspx accessed on the 3rd November 2009.
• Hess, D. (1999). Social Reporting: A Reflexive Law Approach to Corporate Social Responsiveness. Journal of Corporation Law, 25 (1). pp41-84.
• Hess, D. (2001). Regulating Corporate Social Performance: A New Look at Corporate Social Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11 (2), pp.
307-330.
• International Labour Organisation,(2012). Resource guide on CSR. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/lib/resource/subject/csr.htm accessed online on the 23rd April
2012.
• International Standards Organization - ISO 26000 (2012). Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility. Url: http://www.iso.org/iso/social_responsibility accessed on the 4th
February 2012.
• International Standards Organization - ISO 14001 (2012). Environmental Management System. Url: http://www.british-assessment.co.uk/iso-14001-certification
services.htm?gclid=CI_osdPUoLACFYt-fAodaR8lYQ accessed on the 4th February 2012.
• Jamali, D., Safieddine, A.M. and Rabbath, M. (2008). Corporate Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility Synergies and Interrelationships. Corporate Governance:
An International Review, 16, pp. 443–459.
• Jesover, F. and Kirkpatrick, G. (2005). The Revised OECD Principles of Corporate Governance and their Relevance to Non-OECD Countries. Corporate Governance: An
International Review, 13, pp. 127–136.
• Koenig-Archibugi, M. (2004). Transnational Corporations and Public Accountability. Government and Opposition, 39, pp. 234–259.
• Midttun, A. (2009). Strategic CSR Innovation - Serving Societal and Individual Needs. Research Report 2/2009 Norwegian School of Management Department of Innovation
and Organizational Management Nordberg.Url:
• http://web.bi.no/forskning/papers.nsf/b63c43a0385ff61dc1256e620043c6b0/2893041b91f4e4fcc12575690042d6d9/$FILE/2009-02-midttun.pdf accessed online on the 4th
March 2012.
• Newell, P. (2002). From Responsibility to Citizenship: Corporate Accountability for Development. IDS Bulletin, 33(2) Making Rights Real: Exploring Citizenship, Participation
and Accountability. Brighton. OECD (1999).
• Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Url:
http://www.oecd.org/document/49/0,3343,en_2649_34813_31530865_1_1_1_1,00.html accessed on the 2nd Janaury 2012.
• Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism - and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review,
(January/February), pp. 62-77.
• Rasche, A., Baur, D., Van Huijstee, M., Ladek, S. and Naidu, J. (2008). Corporations as Political Actors – A Report on the First Swiss Master Class in Corporate Social
Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 80 (2), pp. 151-173.
• Rasche, A. (2010). Collaborative Governance 2.0. Corporate Governance, 10 (4), pp. 500–511.
• Smith, D. (2002). Demonstrating Corporate Values – Which Standard for your Company? Institute of Business Ethics, London.
• Social Accountability International (2011). Url: http://www.sa-intl.org/index.cfm? Accessed on 3rd June, 2010.
• United Nations Global Compact (2012). Url: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/index.html accessed onthe 20th March 2012.
• Van der Woerd, F. and Van Den Brink, T. (2004). Feasiblity of a responsive business scorecard – a pilot study. Journal of Business Ethics, 55(2), pp. 173-86.
© Dr M.A. Camilleri PhD (Edin.)

36. Thanks for your attention!
Visit
drmarkcamilleri.com