ABSTRACT. This paper studies the differences between traditional financial intermediaries (commercial banks, savings banks and cooperative banks) and ethical banks based on property rights, in which the owner decides the ideology, principles, standards and objectives of the organisation. In ethical banking, affinity centres on positive social and ethical values. The paper consequently focuses on an index proposed both to differentiate ethical banks from other types of banks, and also to pinpoint the differences between the various ethical banks themselves. This is the Radical Affinity Index (RAI), which groups banks together in terms of their stance on ethical commitment, concentrating on ethical ideology and principles (information transparency, placement of assets, guarantees and participation) and using a sample of 114 European banks. The evidence shows that transparency of information and placement of assets are factors that differentiate ethical banks from other financial intermediaries. Guarantees and participation are characteristics specific to ethical banks; these variables, however, do not offer clear evidence to our analysis.

This article analyses the determinants for social and economic efficiency in microfinance institutions using a seemingly unrelated regression. We find two factors that improve their relative efficiency: legal status and target market; however, age and scale are not clear determinants. The main contribution of this paper is to engage microfinance institutions to achieve the desired social efficiency without giving up economic efficiency as the two can be complementary; moreover, it is possible to be efficient as a Non Banking Financial Institution/Non‐Governmental Organization with small size and low‐end target, at least. The paper is a new contribution in line with the so‐called paradox of social cost. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Purpose Recognising the importance of universities in the achievement of social and global objectives, this paper aims to study the relevance of the global reporting initiative (GRI) methodology for reporting University Social Responsibility (USR) activities, taking into account the specificity of higher education institutions (HEI). Design/methodology/approach After a review of the literature and background, the European HEI reports prepared according to the latest version of GRI standards are selected and a comparative study is carried out. The analysis focusses on comparing to what extent the standards are responding to the information needs generated in the field of higher education. Findings General issues, common to all types of organisations, are adequately reported by HEIs, but difficulties are encountered in integrating a vision that incorporates the role of their missions in standards related to economic, social and environmental aspects. Research limitations/implications There are few GRI reports with this format and further research is encouraged as the number of reports increase. So far, major limitations have been found by HEIs to account for their societal missions when using the GRI. Practical implications The debates on USR are promoting an increase in the number of reports on sustainability. This paper provides some examples of the use of disclosures that can be adapted in this context, to move towards the systematisation of these practices. Originality/value This is, to the authors’ knowledge, the first comparative study on the application of GRI to sustainability reports at a European level, focussing on the adequacy between disclosures and missions.

Universities are increasingly being asked to contribute to addressing the significant local and global challenges, such as those identified in the 2030 Agenda. Set in this framework, universities need to account for the social value they generate through their activities, particularly from the perspective of their contribution to different stakeholders. This approach requires, first of all, that the main stakeholders are identified. Relationship and dialogue mechanisms then need to be established which can help guide universities to choose activities which can better meet the needs of their stakeholders. The current paper analyses the potential of integrated reports, and triple bottom line reports, as an instrument for reporting on aspects that go beyond the financial sphere, including economic, social and environmental aspects. Specifically, the paper focuses on studying the viability of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) for reporting the value that European universities generate for their stakeholders. The results show, firstly, that the universities in the sample do not sufficiently address these questions in their reports. Internal stakeholders are prominent in their reports, with the interaction between them and the universities being generally unidirectional. References to value generated are limited, and usually refer to the economic value. However, some examples of good practices are identified that could be used to improve standards of reporting, especially in universities committed to integrated reporting initiatives, in order to better reflect the social value.

Public administration is a key agent for achieving development goals, and this is recognised in the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals. This international consensus requires the involvement of a large number of agents, and the mainstreaming of these global challenges into public policies. However, a practice that could be key in this regard, such as public procurement, does not receive sufficient attention within this framework. Faced with a broad range of goals and targets that cover environmental, economic and social issues, the 2030 Agenda lacks an adequate framework and tools to address the solution to these challenges, and public procurement could have greater prominence as a driver of progress for a number of these goals. The paper studies the role and potential of public procurement as an instrument of policy to contribute to the international development agenda. Therefore, the paper analyses documentation and reports of the main institutions that have worked on these issues to date: United Nations, the Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and the Reflection Group on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Despite having been considered in the design of the Agenda, subsequent reports by the United Nations give little importance to the role of public procurement, which contrasts with that expressed by civil society.