A Preliminary Framework for Product Impact-Weighted Accounts

Serafeim, George; Trinh, Katie

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3532472

Cited by 31 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, domestic social enterprises are operated by a government-certified system, and the Ministry of Labor, a major certification body, is divided into five types: job-providing, social-service-providing, community-contributing, mixed, and other types. Social service performance is a field that actively develops and applies measurement formulas in SPC projects that monetize the uncompensated market value of the services provided by social enterprises [21,27,28]. Considering these preceding studies and domestic circumstances, it is estimated that the regression coefficient increased due to two influences: (1) the effect of the government's employment priority policy related to social enterprises; (2) the relative ease of objective monetization compared with other social performances.…”

Section: Social Performance and Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Cash Incentive Projects on the Social Value Performances of Social Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis of SK’s Social Progress Credit in Korea

Chun

2022

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social enterprises seek to maximize benefits to society and the environment while obtaining profits. Social enterprises are increasing in number; however, their size and growth rates are very small. In addition, many social enterprises face difficulties in obtaining profits through social activities that generate social value, even though they are supported by government policy. Previous research has focused on the relationship between social performance and financial performance, compensation, and policy making, as well as the effect of incentives on social performance within organizations. To our knowledge, there is lack of empirical research on cash incentives for activities that generate social value. This paper analyzes the behavior of companies with regard to fostering a social enterprise ecosystem and a cash incentive system for social enterprises. In particular, we investigate the relationship between SK’s cash incentive system, which is called social progress credit (SPC), and the activities of social enterprises, and we examine which social value activities are affected by a cash incentive system. Furthermore, through empirical analysis, this paper analyzes how the amount of cash for incentives is determined by specific social activities, such as social service performance, employment performance, environmental performance, and social ecosystem performance, as well as by the size of the social enterprise and its financial performance (i.e., revenue and net profit). The results show that employment performance is the most important factor for incentive payments, reflecting the social atmosphere and government policy in Korea, and that it can be a simpler measurement of performance than other social performance measures. Moreover, the results show that there is a significant positive (+) relationship between incentive payments and financial performance, such as sales and net profit of social enterprises. In addition, it was found that more incentives were paid to small social enterprises with higher sales growth.

show abstract

Section: Social Performance and Incentivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Cash Incentive Projects on the Social Value Performances of Social Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis of SK’s Social Progress Credit in Korea

Chun

2022

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Corporations are increasingly using sustainability disclosure to communicate the philosophies, strategies, and outcomes of their social and environmental engagement. About 75% of the largest 100 stock-listed firms around the world released sustainability reports as of 2017, up from only 12% in 1993 (Serafeim et al, 2020). Since their introduction in 2015, the SDGs have been used as a communication framework by the majority of the world's largest companies.…”

Section: Measuring Sustainability Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate uptake of the Sustainable Development Goals: Mere greenwashing or an advent of institutional change?

Lashitew

2021

J Int Bus Policy

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are increasingly used by corporations for benchmarking and communicating their sustainability performance. The SDGs have several features that make them attractive for this purpose, including their universality, specificity and, in many cases, direct linkage with corporate outcomes. Corporations typically disclose their engagement strategies and outcomes voluntarily without the aid of standardized and externally verified reports. This creates a risk of corporations misusing the SDGs for ''greenwashing'' and ''impact washing'' their activities, for example through selective reporting of favorable information. Inaccurate and non-transparent disclosure can also introduce information asymmetries that distort decision-making by investors and other stakeholders. Increasing institutional change towards new measurement frameworks (such as GRI and SASB standards) and regulatory oversight to monitor disclosure (e.g., the EU's Non-Financial Reporting Directive) is likely to improve transparency and reliability in sustainability reporting. This study critically examines the prospects of institutional changes that facilitate the integration, measurement, and reporting of corporate sustainability in general and the SDGs in particular. It also explores emerging innovations in corporate governance and regulation that seek to improve the integration of sustainability issues in corporations and financial markets.

show abstract

“…The wave of collaborative standardising initiatives commenced with the emergence of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue in 2014, that aimed to engage standardisers to drive “alignment” between “sustainability” or “non-financial” reporting frameworks. This was followed by further collaborative initiatives that sought to align, consolidate and offer a consensus around specific visions of sustainability reporting from the Value Balancing Alliance in 2019 (Capitals Coalition, 2020), the World Economic Forum's International Business Council in 2020 (WEF, 2020), the Impact Weighted Accounts Project in 2020 (Serafeim et al. , 2020), alongside the formation of the Value Reporting Foundation and its utilisation by the IFRS Foundation's International Sustainability Standards Board, and the development of EU sustainability reporting standards from 2020.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orchestration and consolidation in corporate sustainability reporting. The legacy of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue

Rowbottom

2022

AAAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe paper uses theoretical conceptions of power and orchestration to analyse the role of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue on the global standardisation of sustainability reporting.Design/methodology/approachThe paper adopts an interpretive approach and draws on a qualitative dataset derived from interviews, documentary analysis and observation.FindingsThe paper traces how the Corporate Reporting Dialogue was orchestrated by the International Integrated Reporting Council, with the objective of aligning sustainability reporting standards, but moved to become a vehicle for orchestrating standards consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure. Collaboration between the Dialogue's five most active bodies forged the blueprint adopted by the International Sustainability Standards Board's vision of sustainability reporting that prioritised reporting only on those socio-ecological issues deemed to materially affect future enterprise value.Originality/valueThe paper explicates the role of collaborative initiatives in the standardisation of sustainability reporting and shows how these initiatives act as vehicles to subtly undermine the GRI position (presented as one standardiser amongst many whose vision appears as an outlier, despite its position as the dominant sustainability reporting standardiser), and establish the prioritisation of a sustainability reporting worldview based on investor-oriented enterprise value creation. The case also draws attention to the specific orchestrators involved in establishing this prioritisation, and reveals the influence of philanthropic foundations. In doing so, it extends our understanding of legitimacy generation in standard-setting by showing how collaborative initiatives offer private standardisers another means to generate input legitimacy for what, in this case, represented a vision of reporting at odds with most sustainability reporting practice. Finally, the paper extends the sites of power to collaborative initiatives and details the mechanisms through which covert power is exercised but also masked where orchestrators use convening power, funding and membership choices to define the boundaries of discussion by influencing who participates, what is on the agenda and what activity is undertaken. Rather than viewing standardisation as a simple pursuit of conquest between individual standardisers, the paper considers how collaboration provides the opportunity for assimilation.

show abstract

A Preliminary Framework for Product Impact-Weighted Accounts

Cited by 31 publications

References 2 publications

The Effect of Cash Incentive Projects on the Social Value Performances of Social Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis of SK’s Social Progress Credit in Korea

The Effect of Cash Incentive Projects on the Social Value Performances of Social Enterprises: An Empirical Analysis of SK’s Social Progress Credit in Korea

Corporate uptake of the Sustainable Development Goals: Mere greenwashing or an advent of institutional change?

Orchestration and consolidation in corporate sustainability reporting. The legacy of the Corporate Reporting Dialogue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About