Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
IESA
Regulations
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| multi stakeholder involvement discussion | cernic - often consult and collaborate with business and experts in the implementation procedures fonesca = gri founded on this approach and has broad ongoing engagement whitehouse - uses multitude of stakeholders |
| cernic, 2008 key points | - OECD represent step in corporations addressing human rights, full potential is still to be realised - implementation procedures require improvement to increase transparency and enforcement |
| cernic, 2008 key points (2) | - critic: not legally binding, vagueness hampers implementation - merits: only standard of its kind, wide geographical scope, NGOs in non-compliant countries can use framework to empower their argument |
| fonesca et al., 2014 key points | - GRI de facto across many standards - limits: effectiveness can mislead decisions & camouflage unsustainability, lack of holistic approach, neglects how factors relate to each other, |
| fonesca et al., 2014 key points (2) | - to increase meaning need to look retro and prospectively instead of just retro - GRI need to consider incorporating more explicit guidelines and requirements - stakeholders must be aware of shortfalls of GRI |
| moneva, 2006 key points | - core aim = increase accountability, practice falls short - companies can present positive image with no meaningful change - GRI represents admin reform but insufficient to achieve accountability - need to increase pressure and integration to improve |
| whitehouse, 2003 key points | - CSR prominent in 70's, CC rise in 90s - CC literature says CSR is outdated - UNs global position allows collab w local govs an NGOs - compulsory principles, new expectations through VI = cyclical process of raising standards |
| whitehouse, 2003 key points (2) | - critic of UNGC: lack of compliance and enforcement, can pick and choose, enhances image, free riding, - critic of VIs: cant force, inconsistency between nations, northern interests = priority - CC and VI cant be replacement of mandatory reg |
| willis, 2003 key points | - GRI & SRI = reciprocal relationship - SRI forces continuous improvement, GRI provides tool for decision making / screening - GRI used for screening provides more rigorous, comparable and auditable information - SRI helps refine and develop guidelines |
| willis, 2003 key points (2) | - GRI mission: to elevate sustainability reporting practices to level of fin reporting - broad engagement = benefit of GRI - limits of GRI - voluntary, diverse stakeholder needs, independent verification not required |
Created by:
amyperston
Popular Accounting sets