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.

Decentralized or centralized production : impacts to the environment, industry, and the economy

Since product take-back is mandated in Europe, and has effects for producers worldwide including the U.S., designing efficient forward and reverse supply chain networks is becoming essential for business viability. Centralizing production facilities may reduce costs but perhaps not environmental impacts. Decentralizing a supply chain may reduce transportation environmental impacts but increase capital costs. Facility location strategies of centralization or decentralization are tested for companies with supply chains that both take back and manufacture products. Decentralized and centralized production systems have different effects on the environment, industry and the economy. Decentralized production systems cluster suppliers within the geographical market region that the system serves. Centralized production systems have many suppliers spread out that meet all market demand. The point of this research is to help further the understanding of company decision-makers about impacts to the environment and costs when choosing a decentralized or centralized supply chain organizational strategy. This research explores; what degree of centralization for a supply chain makes the most financial and environmental sense for siting facilities; and which factories are in the best location to handle the financial and environmental impacts of particular processing steps needed for product manufacture. This research considered two examples of facility location for supply chains when products are taken back; the theoretical case involved shoe resoling and a real world case study considered the location of operations for a company that reclaims multiple products for use as material inputs. For the theoretical example a centralized strategy to facility location was optimal: whereas for the case study a decentralized strategy to facility location was best. In conclusion, it is not possible to say that a centralized or decentralized strategy to facility location is in general best for a company that takes back products. Each company���s specific concerns, needs, and supply chain details will determine which degree of centralization creates the optimal strategy for siting their facilities.

Our Lives, Our Thoughts and Our Allegiance: New Immigrants and American Industry in 1914

Through comparative analysis of the immigrant labor forces at work in iron mining in northern Minnesota, coal mining in Illinois, and steel milling in the Calumet region of Chicago and Gary, this paper addresses the forms of social distance separating and marginalizing new immigrants from American society and trade unionism that existed in 1914, the year that marked the end point of mass immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe. The ���new immigration��� was a labor migration that congregated its subjects overwhelmingly in what were called "unskilled" or "semi-skilled" forms of labor. Skilled work was largely, with certain variations, the preserve of "American" or old immigrant workers. This labor gulf separating new immigrants and American workers was hardened by a spatial separateness. New immigrants often lived in what have been called industrial villages���the mining town or location, the factory neighborhood��� striking in their isolation and insularity from mainstream society. This separateness and insularity became a major preoccupation for corporate managers, Progressive reformers, and for American trade unions as new immigrants began to engage in major labor struggles leading up to 1914. But among the three industries, only the union of coal miners, the United Mine Workers, enjoyed success in organizing the new immigrants. In the steel mills and the iron mines, the unions were either rooted out or failed to gain a foothold at all. The explanation for these differences is to be found in the different forms of industrial development among the industries studied.