Sustainable reverse supply chains and circular economy in multichannel retail returns

The percentage of products being returned in multichannel retail are high and further increasing, yet many retailers and manufacturers are unaware of the importance and scale of this issue. They consider dealing with returns as a cost of doing business and are oblivious of the potential for conflicts between their corporate social responsibility commitments and their returns practices. This article investigates how far sustainable practices and circular economy concepts have been implemented in retail returns systems; it identifies vulnerabilities, barriers, and challenges to the implementation of sustainable, circular practices and suggests ways to overcome them, as sustainability, loss prevention, and profit optimisation can go hand in hand with the right approach to the organisation of the reverse supply chain. Implications of this research on strategic management are outlined. The research was conducted using in‐depth interviews and observations with four major retailers in the United Kingdom, 17 structured interviews, 100 retailer website reviews, and three retail community workshops, all with British and other European retailers.     

Sustainability Management within Supply Chains – A Resource Dependence View

Proceeding from three basic concepts of resource dependence theory – organizational effectiveness, interdependence and external control – we conducted a multiple‐case study to investigate factors that facilitate and hinder sustainability management within supply chains. Our empirical observations highlight that focal firms do not necessarily transfer their own corporate sustainability agendas into control mechanisms for managing the sustainability of their suppliers. Based on this insight, we develop a new theory that explains how intra‐ and interorganizational sustainability management is affected by a firm's business case for promoting sustainability, control mechanisms, trade‐offs, trust and market liberalization. The theory offers new insights into drivers and barriers for effective interorganizational sustainability management, whereas previous theories could not fully explain the reasons for diverging sustainability management practices in supply chains. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment     

Sustainability reporting in Norway – an assessment of performance in the context of legal demands and socio‐political drivers

This article explores the influence of societal, political and regulatory characteristics and developments on the quality of corporate sustainability disclosures in Norway. The paper presents an assessment both of mandatory reporting under the Norwegian Accounting Act, and of voluntary reporting in annual and separate non‐financial reports, by the 100 largest firms in Norway. Our results reveal that only 10% of the companies comply with the legal requirements on environmental reporting, while only half of the firms comply with the legal reporting provisions on working environment and gender equality. The vast majority of firms also report unsatisfactorily on non‐financial issues in the voluntary disclosures assessed. Analysing the causes of these results, we contend that the situation is characterized by (1) an apparent lack of political and social drivers for sustainability reporting in Norway and (2) an absence of sufficient monitoring and enforcement of the environmental reporting legislation on the part of Norwegian authorities. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.     

The Effects of Negative Incidents in Sustainability Reporting on Investors’ Judgments–an Experimental Study of Third‐party Versus Self‐disclosure in the Realm of Sustainable Development

This study examines how the disclosure of negative sustainability‐related incidents affects the investment‐related judgments of decision‐makers. Participants in a sequential 2 × 2 between‐subjects experiment first received a company's financial information before viewing additional sustainability information (by the company and by a non‐governmental organization (NGO); with and without negative disclosure). Results indicate that self‐reporting of negative incidents does not affect decision‐makers’ stock price estimates and investment decisions compared with judgments based on financial information only. However, third‐party disclosure of these incidents by a NGO has a negative affect on these investment‐related judgments. Furthermore, the magnitude of the NGO reporting effect depends on whether the company itself simultaneously reports these incidents. Thus, disclosing negative incidents in sustainability reporting could lose some of its apparent stigma. Instead of avoiding negative reporting altogether, managers might use it as a risk mitigation tool in their reporting strategy. The results also emphasize the power of the often‐mentioned ‘watchdog’ function of NGOs acting as stakeholder advocates. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment     

Corporate Responsibility Reporting and its Determinants in Comparative Perspective – a Review of the Empirical Literature and a Meta‐analysis

For four decades, reporting on corporate responsibility by businesses has been the subject of empirical research. In the 1970s and 1980s, studies mostly originated from Anglo‐Saxon and Western European countries. During the last two decades research on responsibility reporting was increasingly undertaken in emerging and developing countries as well – always following the reporting practices of the respective businesses. Consequentially, a very large number of studies exist today. Many of these have empirically investigated the determinants of responsibility reporting and examined whether internal factors like size and industry or external factors like stakeholder pressures have an impact on disclosure. Thus, the purpose of the following paper is twofold. First, it seeks to provide an overview of the existing literature in order to facilitate further research. Overall, 186 studies have been examined for the determinants which they considered and have been grouped according to their geographical origin. This provides for an analysis of whether academics from different regions have taken different approaches to the empirical examination of responsibility reporting and if their results differed. The findings show that scholars across regions have taken different paths in empirical research, but indications for a variation in the impact of specific determinants on reporting are weak. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.     

Centres and Peripheries: Research Styles and Publication Patterns in ‘Top’ US Journals and their European Alternatives, 1960–2010

In view of recent literature, suggesting a growing international ascendancy of US‐style scholarship but also a decreasing US dominance in journal publications, I ask two questions with regard to management and organization studies: (1) whether there has been an increasing convergence towards US‐style research; and (2) whether the purported decline in the relative amount of US publications has been uniform across leading journals based in the USA and Europe. In addressing these questions, I take a historical perspective and draw upon the centre–periphery model of international scholarship, arguing that convergence or fragmentation in styles of research and variations in publication patterns have evolved through the interplay between processes of influence by the centre (i.e., the USA) and imitative or competitive responses by the periphery. Empirically, the study spans the period 1960–2010 and is confined to ‘top’ US‐based journals and their main European alternatives. The findings answer the first question with a ‘no, other than a greater tendency towards the US‐style when educational or collaborative ties to the USA are involved and by the recently emerging parts of the periphery’. The second question again is answered with a ‘no, the decline has been much less in “top” US journals relative to the ones based in Europe’.     

The Role of Corporate Sustainability in a Low‐Cost Business Model – A Case Study in the Scandinavian Fashion Industry

This multi‐level case study illustrates how corporate sustainability contributes to the low‐cost business model of a Scandinavian fashion company. Contrary to parts of the extant literature, we do not find that corporate sustainability directly adds measurable value (e.g. a better brand image); neither does it exert coercive control over critical supplier relationships. However, corporate sustainability minimizes the downside risk of the business model. It does so by (1) creating implicit contracts that reach beyond traditional ‘shareholder value’, (2) transferring risk to suppliers and (3) improving leadership by motivating management and employees, and by directing their attention to critical issues. For companies, we offer the insight that corporate sustainability is a necessary complement to shareholder value, even if the relationship is not obvious at first sight. We also suggest that concerted actions of companies or a positive connotation of certification create effective control over suppliers. As to public policy, we conclude that regulators could introduce mandatory disclosure of suppliers to facilitate controls through stakeholders, or alternatively an industry‐wide comply‐or‐explain code of conduct. We also address how regulators can take direct actions against countries with unsustainable labor policies. Last, we suggest future research topics, e.g. expanding the notion of a business model by interpreting ‘adding value’ as prevention of losses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.