Managerial perseptions on corporate social responsbility: A Transatlantic comparison between forest products companies in Europe and North America

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) addresses the responsibility of companies for their impacts on society. The concept of strategic CSR is becoming increasingly mainstreamed in the forest industry, but there is, however, little consensus on the definition and implementation of CSR. The objective of this research is to build knowledge on the characteristics of CSR and to provide insights on the emerging trend to increase the credibility and legitimacy of CSR through standardization. The study explores how the sustainability managers of European and North American forest companies perceive CSR and the recently released ISO 26000 guidance standard on social responsibility. The conclusions were drawn from an analysis of two data sets; multivariate survey data based on one subset of 30 European and 13 North American responses, and data obtained through in-depth interviewing of 10 sustainability managers that volunteered for an hour long phone discussion about social responsibility practices at their company. The analysis concluded that there are no major differences in the characteristics of cross-Atlantic CSR. Hence, the results were consistent with previous research that suggests that CSR is a case- and company-specific concept. Regarding the components of CSR, environmental issues and organizational governance were key priorities in both regions. Consumer issues, human rights, and financial issues were among the least addressed categories. The study reveals that there are varying perceptions on the ISO 26000 guidance standard, both positive and negative. Moreover, sustainability managers of European and North American forest companies are still uncertain regarding the applicability of the ISO 26000 guidance standard to the forest industry. This study is among the first to provide a preliminary review of the practical implications of the ISO 26000 standard in the forest sector. The results may be utilized by sustainability managers interested in the best practices on CSR, and also by a variety of forest industrial stakeholders interested in the practical outcomes of the long-lasting CSR debate.

Fish contaminants through the tribal perspective : an ethnography of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community's tribal fish harvest

It has been well documented that many tribal populations and minority groups across the nation have been identified as being at high risk of the adverse health effects created by consuming fish that have been contaminated with mercury, PCBs, DDT, dioxins, and other chemicals. Although fish consumption advisories are intended to inform fish consumers of risks associated with specific species and water bodies, advisories have been the subject of both environmental injustices and treaty rights’ injustices. This means that understanding fish contaminants, through community perspectives is essential to good environmental policy. This study examined the fish contaminant knowledge, impacts on fishing and fish consumption, and the factors that contribute to harvesting decisions and behaviors in one tribal nation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Using ethnographic methods, participant observation and semi-structured interviewing, fieldnotes were kept and all interviews were fully transcribed for data analysis. Among seventeen fishermen and women, contaminants are poorly understood, have had a limited impact on subsistence fishing but have had a substantial impact on commercial fishing activity. But ultimately, all decisions and behaviors are based on their own criteria and within a larger context of knowledge and understanding: the historical and cultural context. The historical context revealed that advisories are viewed as another attack on tribal fishing. The cultural context revealed that it is the fundamental guidance and essential framework associated with all harvesting beliefs, values, and traditional lifeways. These results have implications for advisories. ‘Fish’ and ‘contaminants’ appear differently based on the perceptions and priorities of those who encounter them.