CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN GENERAL
1. CSR values and practices, including levels of support from government, business and the general public
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has received a great deal of attention both locally, in Australia, and internationally. Initially, CSR was not widely accepted in Australia, as the Fremanite doctrine prevailed, that the one and only responsibility of business is to maximise profits through legitimate and lawful competition. More recently, though, CSR has been more readily accepted and embraced by businesses, consumers, and the federal and state governments.
Consumers and the community
Under CSR, corporations owe ethical, financial and social obligations to the communities in which they operate. It is no longer sufficient for corporations only to comply with the law. Consumers and communities expect corporations to stay ahead of legal obligations and respond to, or even anticipate, community expectations (Marsden and Andriof 1998). Consumers are increasingly taking purchasing and investment decisions to take account of whether corporations are meeting community expectations in this regard.
Corporates
The notion that CSR makes good sense, that profit and social responsibility need not be mutually exclusive, is being more widely accepted by corporations. The view that a socially responsible corporation can be more efficient and profitable is gaining ground. For example, it is suggested that the Australian Eco Share Index, which is comprised of the leading Australian listed CSR corporations – and is based on criteria including environmental strategy, management practices, operational and product performance, and stakeholder relations – has consistently outperformed the S&P/ASX 200 index (NSW State Chamber of Commerce, 2001). For this and other reasons, which include improved relations with consumers, employees, governments, suppliers, investors and the broader community, many large listed Australian corporations have permanently incorporated a CSR approach into their policies.
The Australian federal government
The Australian government has taken many initiatives to encourage the effective adoption of CSR policies by corporations, including legislative initiatives and the encouragement of community-business relationships, referred to generally as partnerships. Although Australia’s Corporations Act 2001 does not directly impose duties on directors to consider the impacts of their corporations on the broader community, the Australian government is calling on directors to incorporate social responsibility into the business of their corporations. One notable initiative is the Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence, an award for excellence in contributions to the community. Another, the Prime Minister’s Community-Business Partnership, established in 1998, seeks to encourage the provision of social alliances and partnerships between communities and the corporate sector; a successful example is discussed below, section 11. Although the government has taken these, and other, initiatives, some commentators believe there is still scope for greater encouragement by government of CSR.
2. Laws, statutes, government publications or other significant framework documents
There are numerous frameworks that relate to CSR, both in Australia and internationally with application to Australia. An example is the Sustainability Guidelines released by the Global Reporting Initiative, which are globally applicable reporting standards for voluntary reporting of the economic, environmental and social dimensions of a corporation’s activities, products and services. Many corporations in Australia, such as BHP Billiton and Westpac Banking Corporation, have adopted the GRI framework. The Global Compact is another key framework related to CSR: established by the United Nations and derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Labour Organisation’s Fundamental Principles of Rights at Work, and the Rio Principles on Environment and Development, the Global Compact promotes corporate responsibility and challenges business leaders to adopt and apply ten principles in such areas as human rights, labour standards and the environment. The Principles of the Global Compact have also been adopted by corporations doing business in Australia such as BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Westpac Banking Corporation.
Although no single statute deals only with CSR, Commonwealth legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 address different aspects of CSR, which are discussed in section 6, below. The Australian federal government has introduced into the Income Tax Assessment Act two key initiatives to encourage greater corporate, and personal, philanthropy. The first makes it more attractive for corporations and individuals to donate property, by allowing the income tax deductions to be spread over a period of five years. The second relates to the establishment of Prescribed Private Funds, which is a newer form of charitable trust enjoying tax deductibility for donations. The Australian government regularly publishes a variety of departmental publications, external publications and newsletters related to CSR. Examples include Corporate Sustainability – An Investor Perspective: The Mays Report, a report which highlights aspects of sustainability behaviour that contribute to risk minimisation and asset management and Socially Responsible Investment in Australia, a report containing an annual benchmark survey of socially responsible investments SRI.
3. International treaties, conventions or standards
Among the most important treaties and conventions that directly and indirectly relate to CSR are the Kyoto Protocol on limiting greenhouse gas emissions, which is yet to be ratified by Australia; the UN Global Compact, which addresses the environment, labour, human rights and corporate governance, and has been adopted by many companies in Australia; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which sets out the accepted standard for human rights and has been signed and ratified by Australia. Australia is also a signatory to the voluntary and non-binding OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which relate to a broad range of CSR issues including information disclosure, employment and industrial relations, the environment, combating bribery and consumer interests; these guidelines, although addressed to governments of the signatory states, require observance by the business community in order to have effect. Other international treaties, conventions and standards are discussed below in section 6.
4. Non-statutory sources of liability for companies
Non-statutory sources of liability can include the existence of equitable obligations, certain contractual obligations and the existence of a tortious duty of care at common law. In addition to statutory duties, an equitable obligation is generally imposed on directors, by reason of their fiduciary relationship with the corporation. A material breach of a company’s CSR policies by a director could potentially give rise to liability in equity.
A contract for services between a director and a corporation generally contains an express term giving rise to a duty of care, skill and diligence. Even if not an express term, such term will be implied into the contract – that the director will exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence expected of a person who occupies the director’s position. A breach of such an express or implied term may give rise to liability in contract. Directors are also subject to a common law duty of care owed to the corporation: a failure to respect a corporation’s CSR policies, where there is a duty of care, a breach of duty of care, damage or injury, and causation, may result in an action in tort under common law.
Tort-based litigation has taken on an important role in liability for corporations with respect to particular aspects of CSR – for example, the environment. Climate change litigation is a novel and interesting area, and the potential for litigation arising out of climate change is receiving greater attention as a possible basis for liability of corporations alleged to have materially contributed to climate change (Kerr, 2002).
5. Principal institutions, government agencies and/or major non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
The Australian government has not followed the British government’s initiative in appointing a minister with responsibility for CSR. It has chosen to take initiatives such as the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership, which is located within the Department of Family and Community Services. Its primary role is to advise and assist the government with issues related to community and business collaboration, CSR and philanthropy; it further aims to encourage partnerships between the corporate and community sectors, and promote these partnerships through the annual Prime Minister’s Award for Excellence in Community Business Partnerships (Zappalla, 2003).
NGOs, including the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX), Standards Australia and Environment Australia, play roles including the implementation and monitoring of CSR, entering into relationships generally referred to as partnerships with corporations, encouraging corporations to comply with legislation, and evaluating performance of corporations against social, ethical and environmental standards (Zappalla, 2003). In March 2003, the ASX’s Corporate Governance Council released its Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations. Principle 10, which addresses the recognition of stakeholders’ legitimate interests, contains nine best practice recommendations for directors on CSR. The Principles and Recommendations are not mandatory, but non-compliance by a corporation requires disclosure in the corporation’s Annual Report of the reasons for the non-compliance. In July 2003, Standards Australia released AS 8003 – 2003: Corporate Social Responsibility, a voluntary standard, which sets out the essential elements for establishing and maintaining an effective CSR Programme within an entity, and provides guidance in using these elements (Section 1.1 of AS 8003).
There are also a variety of Australian and international organisations such as Amnesty International, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Total Environment Centre and Green Capital, which play an integral role in the promotion and oversight of aspects of CSR. In addition to these organisations, there are also private consulting organisations, such as the Centre for Corporate Public Services, and ratings organisations, such as RepuTex Ratings (RepuTex), involved in the oversight and promotion of CSR. The Centre For Corporate Public Services assists corporations to comply with their CSR requirements and in the creation of partnerships between corporations and their communities. RepuTex Ratings, a privately owned independent ratings agency, promotes CSR through the assessment of the reputations of major Australian corporations. It rates corporations for social responsibility in four areas: corporate governance, environmental impact, social impact and workplace practices. RepuTex also provides opinion and analysis on the social risk profiles of listed corporations, private companies, government entities and not-for-profit organisations (RepuTex, 2004).
SPECIFIC AREAS OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
6. Human rights
The most important of the international declarations, treaties and conventions on human rights with application to Australia is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This, and numerous others, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Rights of the Child have all been ratified by the Australian government and impose obligations on the government.
Corporations have responsibilities to ensure that human rights are not violated as recognised by the UN Global Compact, the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the Amnesty International Human Rights Principles For Companies. The UN Global Compact prescribes ten principles derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be adhered to by corporations. The OECD Guidelines provide multinationals with principles and standards of good practice consistent with applicable laws; under them, corporations are to respect the human rights of those affected by their activities consistent with the obligations and commitments of the governments of countries in which the companies operate. In this way, the Guidelines impose obligations directly on corporations.
The national human rights institution in Australia, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, was established in 1986 by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Commonwealth); its stated goal is to “foster greater understanding and protection of human rights in Australia and to address the human rights concerns of a broad range of individuals and groups” (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2004). The Commission handles discrimination and human rights complaints, is involved in education and public awareness of human rights issues, oversees human rights compliance and has an active role in policy and legislative development. Corporations in breach of human rights may be liable under legislation including the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Age Discrimination Act 2004, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
7. Corruption
The heightened international interest in the prevention of corruption is clearly demonstrated by the addition of a tenth Principle to the UN Global Compact in June 2004, stating that business should work against corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery. The effect of this addition is that participants of the Global Compact are to avoid bribery, extortion and other forms of graft and prevent their occurrence. Although compliance with the UN Global Compact is legally unenforceable, according to the UN, corporations that are participants of the Compact are publicly accountable to high standards of conduct and to reporting publicly on their record with respect to the Ten Principles (United Nations, 2003).
Australian Standard 8001–2003: Fraud and Corruption Control, released in 2003, provides an outline approach for controlling fraud and corruption, and applies to government sector entities, publicly listed corporations, other business entities and not-forprofit organisations engaged in business or business-like activities. A recent addition to the OECD Guidelines For Multinational Enterprises also contains a recommendation with respect to corruption. The Guidelines now cover combating bribery and state that “enterprises should not, directly or indirectly, offer, promise, give or demand a bribe or other undue advantage to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage”.
On an international level, Australia is an active participant in the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. Australia was also active in the negotiation process for the UN Convention Against Corruption and has since signed and ratified it. The OECD Convention obliges signatory countries to treat the offer or promise of a bribe as well as its acceptance as a criminal offence under national laws, and to facilitate mutual legal assistance and extradition. Article 1 of the UN Convention seeks to promote and strengthen measures to prevent and combat corruption more efficiently and effectively. The Convention has been implemented in provisions of the Australian Criminal Code. The UN Convention contains mandatory provisions which countries will have to take to combat corruption. The impact of this is likely to be felt not only by the public sector but also the private sector and all corporations that wish to conduct business in signatory countries. Australia has also endorsed the primary anticorruption initiative for the Asia-Pacific region, The Asian Development Bank/OECD Anti-Corruption Plan for Asia and the Pacific, a statement of principles and standards for anticorruption policy reform for regional governments. Commitment to this Anti-Corruption Action Plan is demonstrated by endorsing countries committing themselves to its principles and standards through the development of domestic anti-corruption projects.
There are also numerous organisations both domestically and internationally dedicated to preventing corruption. The New South Wales (NSW) Corruption Prevention Network, formed in 1994, supports the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption, the NSW Ombudsman and the NSW Police Service, and provides those involved in the prevention of fraud and corruption with opportunities to exchange information and ideas. ICAC is one of the most prominent organisations involved in preventing corruption in New South Wales, the most populous state of Australia. Created under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1989, the ICAC is a public authority independent of the New South Wales Government and aims to protect the public interest, prevent breaches of public trust and guide the conduct of public officials. The Act gives the ICAC significant powers and discretion to expose and minimise corruption within, or affecting, the New South Wales public sector (Independent Commission Against Corruption, 2004). Transparency Australia, the Australian Arm of Transparency International, a leading NGO devoted to combating corruption, was established in 1995 to raise awareness of international business corruption in Australia and to initiate moves to combat it (Transparency International, 2004).
8. Corporate governance and business ethics
There are numerous guidelines, frameworks and legislation on corporate governance and ethics issues – which have come to greater prominence in the corporate landscape in recent years, partly due to high-profile business collapses internationally and in Australia. Those most relevant to corporations operating in Australia include the ASX Corporate Governance Council Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations, the ASX Listing Rules (particularly, Listing Rule 4.10.3), the amendments to the Corporations Act arising from the enactment of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Programme (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Act 2004 (CLERP 9), the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance (the 2004 revised version) and the Australian Standard AS 8000: Good Governance Principles.
The ASX Corporate Governance Council Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations were released in March 2003 and comprise ten core principles of corporate governance, supported by 28 best practice recommendations. ASX Listing Rule 4.10.3 requires a corporation to disclose its main corporate governance practices and to disclose in its Annual Report the extent to which the corporation complies with the Corporate Governance Council Recommendations and, where it does not, to explain its reasons for non-compliance.
CLERP 9 affects a corporation’s corporate governance policies by legislating for greater transparency and disclosure with respect to annual reporting. CLERP 9 provides for a range of new annual reporting requirements designed to enhance the quality of information available to shareholders, and to allow for more active participation by shareholders in the management of the corporation. CLERP 9 additionally affects corporate governance with respect to such areas as audit independence, directors’ duties and remuneration.
Although the OECD Principles of Corporate Governance are directed mainly towards governments, they also impact on companies’ corporate governance policies. The Principles are intended to assist governments of OECD and non-OECD countries to evaluate and improve the legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks for corporate governance in their countries. There are six non-binding principles, relating to such areas as the treatment of shareholders, the role of stakeholders and disclosure and transparency, which are of use for companies in developing their own corporate governance frameworks and policies.
The main purpose of AS 8000: Good Governance Principles is to assist board members and senior managers of an entity to implement and maintain a robust system of governance. AS 8000 is directed to go beyond simply addressing legal requirements and to improve the culture of compliance throughout the organisation (Standards Australia, 2004).
There are numerous organisations, domestically and internationally, dedicated to promoting corporate governance and ethics issues. Such organisations include the World Council for Corporate Governance, the International Corporate Governance Network, the OECD and Standards Australia. Private organisations such as Corporate Governance International also provide monitoring and advisory services to fund managers on corporate governance practices of ASX-listed entities. Within Australian government, the Corporate Governance Division of the Treasury is devoted to addressing corporate governance. It is responsible for policy advice relating to accountability and disclosure practices of corporations, and provides advice on the duties of directors, corporate insolvency and accounting policy. The government’s Corporate Law Economic Reform Programme is supported by this Division.
9. Corporate responsibility to employees
CSR is a broad concept that requires corporations to consider all stakeholders’ interests. Among the most important stakeholders are the employees of a corporation, and there is a vast body of federal and state legislation related to employer-employee relations. Federal legislation includes the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1976, the Public Service Act 1999, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. State legislation includes the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (New South Wales), the Employment Protection Act 1982 (New South Wales), the Employment Protection Regulation 2001 (New South Wales), the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (New South Wales), the Australian Capital Territory Discrimination Act 1991 (Australian Capital Territory) and the Northern Territory Anti-Discrimination Act 1996 (Northern Territory).
Employers have an obligation to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace, and there is a corporate responsibility to employees to this effect. The international and domestic organisations that promote corporate responsibility to employees include the UN, the OECD, the International Labor Organisation (ILO), and the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. ILO member states, including Australia, have adopted conventions concerning employees with family responsibilities. The Convention of Workers with Family Responsibilities (No. 156) focuses on eliminating employment discrimination of women and men who have family responsibilities.
Principle IV of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises requires that enterprises should, among other things, generally not discriminate against employees on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, and should observe standards of employment and industrial relations and take adequate steps to ensure occupational health and safety in their operations. Principles 3 to 6 of the UN Global Compact address Labour. Principle 6 asks corporations to act to eliminate discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.
Issues facing employers with respect to employees include dependent care, religion in the work place and HIV/AIDS in the work place. The increased proportion of women in the workforce, coupled with Australia’s aging population, has resulted in the need for dependent care benefits from employers. Employers have a responsibility to address this issue and ensure that proper programmes are designed and implemented to help employees care for their family members. With respect to the issue of religion, employers must respect and accommodate the various religious beliefs of their employees and this must be reflected in the corporation’s policies. The ILO Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention and Australia’s Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986, ratifying the ILO Convention, address discrimination on the grounds of religious beliefs. People with HIV/AIDS must also not be discriminated against in the work place; Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992 prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of presence in the body of disease-causing organisms such as the HIV virus. Employers also have a responsibility to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment in the work place. In many circumstances where such steps have not been taken, employers will be held vicariously liable for the actions of employees that amount to discrimination and/or sexual harassment.
10. Corporate responsibility towards the environment
Various international guidelines, standards, treaties and conventions, including the Stockholm and Rio declarations, have highlighted the importance of preserving the environment. Additionally, three of the Ten Principles prescribed by the UN Global Compact relate directly to the environment and asks corporations to support a precautionary approach to environmental challenges (Principle 7), to undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility (Principle 8), and to encourage the development and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies (Principle 9). The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises also require compliance directly by corporations. The Guidelines require enterprises to take due account of the need to protect the environment and establish and maintain a system of environmental management appropriate to the enterprise.
In Australia, direct liability for corporations, and in some extreme cases their directors, is likely to arise from breach of environmental legislation such as the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (New South Wales) (POEO Act), the Contaminated Land Management Act 1997 (New South Wales), the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales), the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (New South Wales), the Water Resources Act 1998 (Australian Capital Territory), the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Commonwealth).
Australian corporations have responded positively to community and environmental groups’ demands. Examples include those of Telstra and the Insurance Australia Group (IAG). Telstra promotes environmental awareness among its suppliers and contractors through the inclusion of environmental clauses in contracts, and is reported to require all vendors to prepare an environmental management plan, focusing on such areas as energy, material usage, packaging and waste management. IAG has taken steps to mitigate climate change by actively supporting ratification of the Kyoto Protocol – which Australia, at present, has not ratified – and by sponsoring research into climate change and investigating how to use insurance policies to encourage greenhouse-efficient practices (Australian Consumer Association, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, Australian Conservation Foundation, 2004). In government, the Department of the Environment and Heritage is responsible for environment issues; it develops and implements national policy, programmes and legislation to protect and conserve Australia’s national environment and cultural heritage, and promotes the sustainable development principles of the Rio declaration.
11. Corporate responsibility to communities
CSR requires corporations to consider the interests of all stakeholders, including the community in which they carry on their business. In Australia, the federal government has been a significant encourager and facilitator of corporate involvement in communities through such initiatives as the Prime Minister’s Business Community Partnership, the tax changes with respect to philanthropy discussed above, section 2, and the linking of tenders to community development. The Prime Minister’s Business Community Partnership facilitates community business collaboration for the benefit of both the community and corporations. The involvement by businesses in the Partnership has been found to lead to an increased profile for the community, flow-on effects such as improved health and morale, a decrease in the community’s crime rate, and an improved capacity to find creative solutions to local problems. The indigenous Australian community is often the focus of these Partnerships, an example being the Indigenous Enterprise Partnership, established in 2000 to address issues of economic independence and to brake the cycle of welfare dependency among indigenous communities in Australia. Key partners to the Indigenous Enterprise Partnership include Cape York Partnerships, the Boston Consulting Group, Westpac Banking Corporation, the Body Shop and the Myer Foundation. Two of the initiatives that have arisen from it so far are the Family Income Management Scheme, which educates indigenous Australians about the effective use of family income, and the Business Hubs Strategy, which involves establishing business hubs to support indigenous entrepreneurship in such areas as Cape York. Regardless of the origin or cause of corporate involvement in communities, there is no doubt that it is crucial for a company to enhance its longevity and obtain community acceptance in order to protect and enhance its “licence to operate”.
12. Corporate responsibility for overseas activities
The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises expressly state that enterprises should be encouraged to adhere to the Guidelines, with respect to such issues as employment and industrial relations, the environment, and combating bribery, wherever they operate, taking into account the particular circumstances of each host country. It is widely accepted that corporations incorporated in Australia, although subject to Australian law, must comply with the relevant laws and all applicable treaties and conventions of the country or countries in which its activities are conducted. In Australia, there is a trend for a corporation’s home laws to be adhered to voluntarily by corporations, even when they are more onerous than the laws of the country in which the corporation is doing business. In the past, there have been proposals to introduce legislation requiring corporations to comply with Australian laws when conducting activities overseas, but to date the proposals remain voluntary.
13. Procurement
CSR plays an important role in procurement, whether for the award of government contracts or private sector contracts. Many corporations have now developed environmental procurement policies in line with their CSR practices. For example, the National Australia Bank Group has implemented a procurement policy which requires suppliers to complete an environmental checklist (National Australia Bank, 2004). A common feature of procurement policies of corporations is the requirement that all relevant environmental laws and regulations must be complied with, a breach of this requirement resulting in the termination of the procurement contract. Many companies, both domestically and internationally, have also included ISO 14001 compliance as a minimum standard in their procurement policies. The Australian government, through the Department of Finance and Administration, is responsible for procurement policies with respect to government contracts. A core procurement policy framework has been set out, and the expectations placed on government departments and agencies undertaking procurement explained, in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, a revised version of which was released in July 2004.
14. CSR reporting and socially responsible investing
Socially responsible investment (SRI) has become popular in Australia. It was announced at the Fourth Annual Ethical Investment Association Conference that SRI funds under management have increased by 41 per cent to AUS$21.5 billion over the 12 months ending 30 June, 2004. According to a study by AMP Henderson Global Investors, SRI managers have outperformed the broader S&P/ASX 200 Index over the first, second, third and fifth years to September 2003, pointing to continuing long-term competitive results from the SRI sector.
To assist SRI, there has been some regulation with respect to CSR reporting. A recent amendment to the Corporations Act, enacted by Australia’s Financial Services Reform Act 2001, added a SRI reporting obligation, requiring that product disclosure statements, in respect of any investment component, include information on the extent to which labour standards or environmental, social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention or realisation of the investment (section 1013D(1)(l)). In February 2003, the Investment and Financial Services Association issued its Guidance Note No.14.00 to provide guidance to members and other product issuers on the application of this new disclosure requirement to investment products. The Investment and Financial Services Association Guidelines specify the principles to be adopted in developing SRI disclosure and encourage best practice in the development of product disclosure statements, to ensure that consumers are provided with information to make informed investment decisions (para 4, IFSA Guidance Note No. 14.00). In December 2003, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission also released Guidelines, entitled ‘Section 1013DA Disclosure Guidelines’ to assist fund managers and life insurance corporations in relation to SRI disclosure obligations (para 5 IFSA Guidance Note No. 14.00).
In terms of socially responsible investing, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index and the FTSE4Good are two key external benchmarking initiatives that measure corporations’ sustainable development performance. The Dow Jones Sustainability Index includes about 300 corporations representing the top 10 per cent of leading sustainability companies in 59 industry groups in 34 countries. The FTSE4Good measures the performance of corporations that meet globally-recognised CSR standards. Australia has yet to develop this level of external benchmarking.
SOURCES
Australian Consumer Association, Oxfam Community Aid Abroad, Australian Conservation Foundation, (2004) Corp Rate: An Assessment of Australia’s Top 50 Listed Companies in 2003, [Internet] Australian Consumer Association.
www.acfonline.org.au/corp_rate/intro.asp?IdDoc=1821
Australian government (2003), Media Release: Australia Endorses Anti-corruption Action Plan For Asia-Pacific Region [Internet] Australian government.
www.ausaid.gov.au/media/release.cfm?BC=Media&Id=7034_7428_295_9947_5827
Australian government (2004), The Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership [Internet] Australian government. www.partnerships.gov.au Australian government (2004), Incentives To Encourage Giving [Internet] Australian government. www.partnerships.gov.au/philanthropy/philanthropy_incentives.shtml Australian government (2004), Community Business Partnerships [Internet] Australian government. www.partnerships.gov.au/cbp/cbp.shtml. [Accessed 5 November 2004]. Australian government (2004), The Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership – 2003 Partnership Stories, [Internet] Australian government.
www.partnerships.gov.au/cbp/cbp_stories_2003.shtml
Australian government Department of Finance and Administration (2004) Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines [Internet] Australian Government Department of Finance and Administration.
www.finance.gov.au/ctc/publications/purchasing/cpg/commonwealth_procurement_guide.html
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004) About the Department of the Environment and Heritage [Internet] Department of the Environment and Heritage. www.deh.gov.au/ Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (2003) Corporate Sustainability – An Investor Perspective: The Mays Report. [Internet] Department of the Environment and Heritage. www.deh.gov.au/industry/finance/publications/maysreport/pubs/mays-report.pdf
Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage (2003) Socially Responsible Investment in Australia, [Internet] Department of the Environment and Heritage. www.deh.gov.au/industry/finance/publications/pubs/benchmark-2003.pdf
Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) (2003) Section 1013DA Disclosure Guidelines, Sydney, Australian Securities and Investment Commission. www.asic.gov.au/asic/pdflib.nsf/LookupByFileName/s1013DA_finalguidelines.pdf/$file/s1013DA_finalguidelines.pdf
Australian Stock Exchange, (2004) ASX Corporate Governance Council [Internet] Australian Stock Exchange. www.asx.com.au/about/l3/AboutCorporateGovernance_AA3.shtm
Australian Stock Exchange (2003) ASX Corporate Governance Council Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations. [Internet] Australian Stock Exchange. www.shareholder.com/visitors/dynamicdoc/document.cfm?documentid=364&companyid=ASX
BHP Billiton (2004) Corporate Social Responsibility [Internet] BHP Billiton. www.bhpbilliton.com/bb/sustainableDevelopment/corporateSocialReponsibility.jsp
Birch, D. (1998) Awakening the Possibilities: The First National Conference On Corporate Citizenship, Melbourne, Deakin University Corporate Citizenship Research Unit. Business for Social Responsibility (2004) Issues In Corporate Social Responsibility [Internet] Business for Social Responsibility. www.bsr.org/AdvisoryServices/Issues.cfm Business for Social Responsibility (2004) Dependent Care [Internet] Business for Social Responsibility. www.bsr.org/www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=354 Business for Social Responsibility (2004) HIV/AIDS in the Workplace [Internet] Business for Social Responsibility. www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=49032
Business for Social Responsibility (2004) Religion in the Workplace [Internet] Business for Social Responsibility. www.bsr.org/CSRResources/IssueBriefDetail.cfm?DocumentID=528
Cronin, C. (2001) Corporate Social Responsibility in Australia: A Select Review of the Literature, Background Paper No. 3, 2001, Research and Policy Team, The Smith Family. Cronin, C. Zappala, G. and Clarkson, M. (2001) Measuring the Social Impact of Companies In Australia: The Smith Family’s Participation In The Good Reputation Index, Background Paper No. 3, Research and Policy Team, The Smith Family. Deni Greene Consulting Services, Standards Australia and Ethical Investment Services (2001) A Capital Idea: Realising Value From Environmental And Social Performance [Internet] www.deh.gov.au/industry/finance/publications/pubs/capital-idea.pdf
Dumais, M. and Cohn, C. (1993) ‘Corporate Citizenship in Australia’, Melbourne, Sasakawa Peace Foundation and the Australian Association for Philanthropy. Egan, L. (2004) Investors Warm To SRI, [Internet] www.moneymanagement.com.au/articles/c8/0c0281c8.asp
International Ltd (2000) Environment Monitor: Global Public Opinion on the Environment Australian Results [Internet] www.globescan.com Glindemann, R. Hughes, A. Allens Arthur Robinson (2003) Environmental Aspect of Working Overseas, [Internet] AMPLA Limited.
www.ampla.org/branchesandevents/WA20%Conference20%20Hughes-Glindemann20%Paper.pdf
Global Sustainability Institute at RMIT (2003) Triple Bottom Line + One Social and Cultural [Internet] Global Sustainability Institute at RMIT. www.global.rmit.edu.au/tbl/2.5_social.pdf
Hing, S. (2004) Do you think it is self-interest that drives a business to adopt a Corporate Social Responsibility approach? Does it matter what the motivation is? [Internet] Australian government. www.partnerships.gov.au/pdf/essays/stephanie.pdf
House, L. Treatment of Expenditure Incurred in the Rehabilitation of Mine Sites: A Comparison of the Taxation and Accounting Methods (Undergraduate Thesis Law, University of Wollongong, 2003)
Howell, N. (2004) Ethical Lending: A Corporate Social Responsibility Or A Legal Responsibility? [Internet] Centre For Credit and Consumer Law, Griffith University.
www.consumer.vic.gov.au/cbav/fairattach.nsf/Images/creditconference2004_howell/$File/howell.pdf
Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission, (2004) The Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission: Working towards an Australian society where human rights of all are respected, protected and promoted, [Internet] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. www.humanrights.gov.au/info_sheet.html
Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission, (2004) Information For Employers, [Internet] www.humanrights.gov.au/info_for_employers/employer_resp/index.html
Independent Commission Against Corruption (2004) What is the ICAC? [Internet] ICAC. Available from:
www.icac.nsw.gov.au/go/the-icac/contact-us
Independent Enterprise Partnerships (2004) Key Partners [Internet] Independent Enterprise Partnerships.
www.iep.net.au/about_partners.htm
Independent Enterprise Partnerships (2004) Projects [Internet] Independent Enterprise Partnerships. Available from:
www.iep.net.au/projects.htm
Investment and Financial Services Association (2003) IFSA Guidance Note No. 14.00: Socially Responsible Investment Disclosure [Internet] Sydney, IFSA. www.ifsa.com.au/IFSAWeb/attach.nsf/Attachments/Standards+and+
Guidance+Notes~IFSA+Guidance+Note+No.+14:+Socially+Responsible
+Investment+Disclosure/$File/2003_02_10_final+SRI+guidelines.pdf
Kerr, M. (2002) Tort Based Climate Change Litigation In Australia: A Discussion Paper Prepared For The Climate Change Litigation Forum, London, March 2002. Hosted By Friends Of The Earth International, Australian Conservation Foundation Johns, G. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility or Civil Society Regulation?’, Australian Financial Review, 19 August 2002 Lyons, M. (1998), ‘From Philanthropy To Corporate Citizenship’, CACOM Working Paper No. 44 Marsden, C. and Andriof, J. (1998) ‘Towards an Understanding of Corporate Citizenship and How to Influence it’, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 2., No. 2: 329 – 352 McNamara D. (2004) Some Commentators Have Argued That The Obligation Of Business To Make A Profit is Incompatible With A Corporate Social Responsibility Approach To Business. Do You Agree? [Internet] Australian government.
www.partnerships.gov.au/pdf/essays/daniel.pdf
National Australia Bank Group (2004) Environment Procurement Policy [Internet]
National Australia Bank Group. [Internet]
www.nabgroup.com/0,,54333,00.html
NSW State Chamber of Commerce (2001) An Overview of Corporate Social Responsibility in Australia, NSW State Chamber of Commerce [Internet]
www.thechamber.com.au/commongood/newsletter/research.pdf
Pheasant, B. ‘Ratings Game: Measuring Social Responsibility Is The Vogue – But It’s Testing Stuff’ [2005] 6(1) AFR Boss, p 54. As published by the Australian Financial Review Positive Outcomes (2003) Indigenous Enterprise Partnerships [Internet] Positive Outcomes. www.positiveoutcomes.com.au/page.asp?partid=106
Ramsay, I. Hoad, R. (1997) Disclosure of Corporate Governance Practices by Australian Listed Companies, [Internet] University of Melbourne. http://cclsr.law.unimelb.edu.au/research-papers
Skadegard, S. T. (2004) Sustainability Triple Bottom Line Corporate Responsibilities: The role of human rights in Corporate Social Responsibility, [Internet] Lawhouse.dk.
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/thorsen.ppt
Spry, M. (1997) Hinchinbrook Island and the Precautionary Principle in Australian Environmental Law Research Note 4 1997 – 1998. [Internet] www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn04.htm
Standards Australia (2004) Building a Culture of Good Governance [Internet] Standards Australia. www.standards.org.au/newsroom/tgs/2003-07/plittle/plittle.htm Taylor, M. (2003) SRI Managers Hold Their Own on Performance [Internet] www.moneymanagement.com.au/articles/1b/0c01bf1b.asp
The Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development, ‘The OECD Guidelines For Multinational Enterprises’, Revision 2000 Total Environment Centre, (2002) Corporate Environment Sustainability – Peak Groups Statement, Sydney, Total Environment Centre [Internet] www.tec.nccnsw.org.au/member/tec/projects/EnvironmentalSustainability
AssessmentforCorporations/csjs.html
Transparency International (2004) Introducing TI-Australia [Internet] www.transparency.org.au/introducing.html
United Nations (2003) The Global Compact Enters The Fight Against Corruption, [Internet] United Nations www.unglobalcompact.org/content/Dialogue/transcor.htm United Nations, (2000) United Nations Global Compact, [Internet] United Nations www.unglobalcompact.org
Zappala, G. (2003) Corporate Citizenship and the Role of Government: the Public Policy Case, Research Paper No. 4 2003-04. Canberra, Politics and Public Administration Group
Cases
Caton v. Richmond Club Limited [2003] NSWADT 202 Daniels t/as Deloitte Haskins & Sells v. AWA Ltd (1995) 16 ACSR 607 Lister v. Romford Ice & Cold Storage Co Ltd [1957] AC 555
