Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658503
 
 

References (67)



 
 

Citations (3)



 


 



Towards a Model to Compare and Analyze Accountability Standards: The Case of the UN Global Compact


Andreas Rasche


Copenhagen Business School

September 20, 2008

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 192-205, 2008

Abstract:     
Although accountability standards (e.g. the Global Reporting Initiative and SA 8000) have made their way on to the agendas of managers and researchers, a model to compare and analyze these tools in a systematic way is a conspicuous omission. This paper aims to develop such a model. First, we briefly introduce the nature of accountability standards and explore commonalities and differences between them. Second, we present a model to compare and analyze these initiatives. This model allows interested parties to discuss accountability standards based on an analysis of the content of their underlying norms, the implementation processes they suggest, and their context of application. Third, we apply the model to the UN Global Compact. Finally, we show how this initiative differs from other standards and also discuss its strengths and weaknesses according to the outlined model.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 41

Keywords: Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Accountability, Accountability Standards, UN Global Compact, Legitimacy, Stakeholder Dialogue

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: August 13, 2010  

Suggested Citation

Rasche, Andreas, Towards a Model to Compare and Analyze Accountability Standards: The Case of the UN Global Compact (September 20, 2008). Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 16, No.4, pp. 192-205, 2008. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1658503

Contact Information

Andreas Rasche (Contact Author)
Copenhagen Business School ( email )
Solbjerg Plads 3
Frederiksberg C, DK - 2000
Denmark
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 504
Downloads: 83
Download Rank: 183,930
References:  67
Citations:  3

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.484 seconds