LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Brown, James Daniel (2012)
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Subjects:
Corporate Responsibility (CR) defines the process of self-regulation, whereby an organisation seeks to measure and improve its performance related to the social, environmental and economic expectations placed upon it by society. In the past two decades the prominence, and therefore uptake of CR activities and reporting has increased across many sectors. The pace of this change has varied significantly, with many industries quickly becoming aware of its importance and integrating it into their business operations while others have seen CR as lower priority and have been much slower to embrace it. In the UK, while some of the individual components of CR are governed by legislation (e.g. environmental activities and health & safety), others such as social interactions and CR reporting have little or no legislation associated with them. This lack of any clear legislative requirements effectively allows organisations to report on any topics they wish and results in a very varied approach to implementing and reporting upon the subject. While some aspects of CR, such as reporting (Jones, Comfort et al. 2006), performance benchmarking (BITC, Graafland et al (2003)) and attitudes to CR (Herridge, (2003), Petrovic- Lazarevic, (2008)) have been investigated in isolation, there has been no attempt to provide a holistic view of the industry. This research seeks to do just that by combining a range of data in an effort to build a broad evidence base of the industry's reporting practices, performance and perceptions of the industry with regards to CR. This thesis presents the findings from a mixed-method review of CR reporting, activities and performance amongst UK construction companies. Mixed methodologies (qualitative and quantitative) were employed in order to interrogate a range of data sources. The methods employed in the empirical chapters of this work include a review of construction CR reports, a benchmarking exercise and a case study of consultancy companies operating in the construction industry. With regards to reporting, while some longitudinal changes were seen with respect to report size and levels of detail, a number of core or priority topics were identified which were commonly covered by construction companies regardless of which sub-sector they operated in. The benchmarking exercise attempted to compare the CR performance of companies within three construction sub-sectors (materials suppliers, contractors and consultants) and while some patterns were evident, such as topics where performance was consistently high, no clear trends were seen between the performances of the three sub-sectors reviewed. The case study highlighted a number of difficulties that are faced by consultancy companies and based upon the study, a range of recommendations which could potentially help to address some of them are proposed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 2.7.4 Extractive Industries
    • 2.7.5 Generic CR Initiatives and Guidance
    • 2.7.6 Summary of Other Industries - Lessons Learned CR in the Construction Industry
    • 2.8.1 Drivers for CR in Construction
    • 2.8.2 CR Activities
    • 2.8.3 CR Reporting and Guidance
    • 2.8.4 Corruption and Transparency Research Questions
    • 2.9.1 Reporting
    • 2.9.2 Activities and Performance
    • 2.9.3 Understanding and Integration Chapter Summary A Mixed Methodology Comparative Framework - Report Review
    • 3.1 .1 Comparative Methodologies
    • 3.1.2 Introducing Waves of CR
    • 3.1.3 Waves of CR Expanded
    • 3.1.4 The GRI KPls
    • 3.1.5 Benefits of the Report Review Benchmarking Exercise - Company Survey
    • 3.2.1 Can Benchmarking Work for CR?
    • 3.2.2 Problems of Benchmarking
    • 3.2.3 Benchmarking Methods
    • 3.2.4 Choice of Benchmarking Method
    • 3.2.5 Survey Format
    • 3.2.6 Benefits of the Benchmark Method Case Study - Consultancy Sub-Sector
    • 3.3.1 What is a Case Study and is it Applicable to This Research?
    • 3.3.2 Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data
    • 3.3.3 Considerations of the Case Study Method - Strengths and Weaknesses Chapter Summary CR Reporting Trends In UK Construction A Review of UK Construction Industry CR Reports
    • 4.1.1 Expanding CR Waves
    • 4.1.2 Identification and Development of Mini-Waves
    • 4.1.3 'Original' and 'New' Mini-Waves and their Relevance to the Construction Industry Developing the Comparative Framework Review Methodology CR Reporting Results 2006 Analysis of Results From 2006 Review
    • 4.5.1 Comparison by Mini-Wave
    • 4.5.2 Discussion of 2006 Results 2010 CR REPORT Review Analysis of Results From 2010 Review
    • 4.7.1 Comparison by Mini-Wave
    • 4.7.2 Discussion of 2010 results in the context of the 2006 results Chapter Conclusions Benchmarking of Corporate Responsibility Benchmarking Corporate Responsibility
    • 5.1.1 Benchmarking UK Construction Companies
    • 5.1.2 Developing Graafland et a!s Questionnaire
    • 5.1.3 Questionnaire Structure and Scoring
    • 5.1.4 Sample Selection and Contact Information
    • 5.1.5 Survey Delivery Analysis of Benchmarking Results
    • 5.2.1 Response Rate
    • 5.2.2 Benchmark Weightings and Calculations
    • 5.2.3 Comparison of Weighting Methods
    • 5.2.4 Ranking Results Results by Topic and Sub-Sector
    • 5.3.1 Non-Scoring Questions
    • 5.3.2 Scoring Questions
    • 5.3.3 Employee Relations
    • 5.3.4 Suppliers
    • 5.3.5 Customer Relationships
    • 5.3.6 Responsibility Towards Society
    • 5.3.7 Shareholder Responsibility
    • 5.3.8 Responsibility to Competitors
    • 5.3.9 Use of Instruments
    • 5.3.10 Importance of Different Stakeholders Interim Results Summary Discussion
    • 5.5.1 Comparison with Graafland et a's Research Chapter Conclusions Consultancy Sub-Sector Case Study The Role of Consultants A Case Study of Consultancy Companies Interviews With URS Scott Wilson Staff...
    • 6.3.1 Interviewee Selection and Interview Method
    • 6.3.2 Developing the Interview Topics and Questions Interview Coding and Analysis
    • 6.4.1 Interview Analysis
    • 6.4.2 Summary of Interview Analysis Consultancy Benchmark Review What are Other Consultants Doing?
    • 6.6.1 Review Process
    • 6.6.2 Analysis of Consultancy Report Review Chapter Conclusions
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article