However challenging the prospects, there are growing indications of large corporations taking their social and environmental responsibilities more seriously, and of these issues becoming more critical in the business agenda. The substance of company reports is changing, from purely environmental reporting up until 1999, to sustainability reporting (social, environmental and economic), which has become the mainstream approach of global companies. Though some of the expressed concern may be part of the discourse of political correctness, there does appear to be a significant shifting of opinion among executives. At the confluence of these multiple emerging initiatives and trends towards greater corporate social and environmental responsibility, there is emerging a dynamic stakeholder model for driving enlightened shareholder value (or more expansively, stakeholder values).
This article examines how the duty to promote the success of the company offers legal encouragement to pursue responsible strategies on the part of directors and managers, and how legal and moral liability is converging. Similarly, the effect of the modern prudent investor rule is that institutional investor decision-makers are given latitude to follow a wide range of diversified investment strategies, provided their choice of investments is rational and economically defensible, they may sustain a portfolio balanced by environmental, social and governance criteria.
American Law Institute (1994), Principles of Corporate Governance: Analysis and Recommendations, Vol. 1, Philadelphia: American Law Institute Publishers.
Association of British Insurers (2004), Risk, Returns and Responsibility, London: Association of British Insurers, www.abi.org.uk
6.
Australian Councils of Super Investors Inc. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Guidance for Investors, Discussion Paper, September, Sydney: ACSI.
7.
Australian Stock Exchange (2003), Principles of Good Corporate Governance and Best Practice Recommendations, Sydney: Australian Stock Exchange.
8.
Baxter,R. (1976), ‘The Duties of Directors of Public Companies - The Realities of Commercial Life, the Contradictions of the Law, and the Need for Reform’, Australian Business Law Review, No. 4, pp. 289.
9.
Bendell,J. (2004), Barricades and Boardrooms: A Contemporary History of the Corporate Accountability Movement, Paper 13, Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, www.unrisd.com
10.
Berle,A. A. (1931), ‘Corporate Powers as Powers in Trust’, Harvard Law Review, No. 44, pp. 1049–1074.
11.
Berle,A. A. (1935), ‘For Whom Corporate Managers are Trustees: A Note’, Harvard Law Review, No. 45, 1365–1372.
12.
Berle,A. A. and Means,G. C. (1933), The Modern Corporation and Private Property, New York: Macmillan.
13.
Berle,A. A. (1955), The 20th Century Capitalist Revolution, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
14.
Bielefeld,S., Higginson,S., Jackson,J. and Ricketts,A. (2004), ‘Directors' duties to the company and minority shareholder environmental activism’, Company and Securities Law Journal, No. 28, pp. 36.
15.
Blair,M. and Stout,L. (1999), ‘A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law’, Vanderbilt Law Review, No. 85, pp. 247.
16.
Blair,M. and Stout,L. (2001), ‘Director Accountability and the Mediating Role of the Corporate Board’, Washington University Law Quarterly, No. 79, pp. 403.
17.
Brennan,G. (2002), ‘Law Values and Charity’, Australian Law Journal, No. 76, pp. 492.
18.
Bruntland Commission (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
Business Council of Australia (2001), Towards Sustainable Development - How Leading Australia and Global Corporations are Contributing to Sustainable Development, May, Sydney: BCA.
20.
Calder,F. and Culverwell,M. (2005), Following up the World Summit on Sustainable Development Commitments on Corporate Social Responsibility, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London: Chatham House.
21.
CAMAC (2006), Corporate Responsibility: Managing Risk and Creating Value, Canberra: Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services
22.
Carbon Trust (2005), A Climate for Change: A Trustee's Guide to Understanding and Addressing Climate Risk, www.thecarbontrust.co.uk
23.
Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (2005), Measuring Up: A study on Corporate Sustainability Reporting in Canada, Vancouver: CGA.
24.
Clark,M (1916), ‘The Changing Basis of Economic Responsibility’, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 13–19, In: ClarkeT. (ed.), (2005), Corporate Governance Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, London: Routledge, pp. 45-60.
25.
Clarke,T. (2004), Theories of Corporate Governance, London: Routledge.
26.
Company Law Review Steering Group (CLR) (2000), Modern Company Law for a Competitive Economy: Developing The Framework, London: Department of Trade and Industry.
27.
Context (2006), Reporting in Context: Global Corporate Responsibility Reporting Trends 2006, London: Context
Corfield,A. (1998), ‘The Stakeholder Theory and its Future in Australian Corporate Governance: A Preliminary Analysis’, Bond Law Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 213–232.
30.
Corporate Responsibility Coalition (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility in the Finance Sector in Europe, London: Corporate Responsibility Coalition (CORE).
31.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility: Discussion Paper, Sydney: Australian Government.
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2003), Triple Bottom Line Reporting in Australia - A Guide to Reporting Against Environmental Indicators, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australiawww.deh.gov.au/industry/finance/publications/index.html
39.
Department of the Environment and Heritage (2004), Triple Bottom Line Report: Our Environment, Social and Economic Performance, September, Australia.
40.
Digby,Q. and Watterson,L. (2004), ‘Pursuing Profit, Productivity and Philanthropy: The Legal Obligations Facing Corporate Australia’, Keeping Good Companies, June, Sydney: Chartered Secretaries Australia.
41.
Doane,D. (2005), ‘The Myth of CSR’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Stanford University Graduate School of Business, Fall, pp. 23–29.
42.
DoddE. M. (1932), ‘For Whom are Corporate Managers Trustees?’, Harvard Law Review, No. 45, pp. 1145, In: ClarkeT. (ed.), (2005), Corporate Governance Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, London: Routledge, pp. 61–75.
43.
ElkingtonJ. (1997), Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business, Oxford: Capstone Publishing Limited.
44.
The Equator Principles (2004), A framework for banks to manage environmental and social issues in project financing, www.equator-principles.com/pfm2.shtml
45.
EntineJ. (2003), ‘The myth of social investing: A critique of its practice and consequences for corporate social performance research’, Organization & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 352–368.
46.
Ernst & Young (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility of Global Companies, New York: Ernst & Young.
47.
EIU (2005), The Importance of Corporate Responsibility, White Paper, The Economist Intelligence Unit Ltd.
48.
European Union (2001), Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility, Brussels: European Union.
49.
European Commission (2002), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Brussels: European Union.
50.
European Commission (2002), Communication Concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Brussels: European Union.
51.
European Commission (2003), Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development, Brussels: European Union.
52.
European Commission (2003), EU Multi-stakeholder Forum on Corporate Social Responsibility, Brussels: European Union.
53.
European Commission (2004), Corporate Social Responsibility: National Public Policies in the European Union, Brussels: European Union.
54.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, (2005a), ‘The World Bank is Not Enough’,Equator Principles Survey 2005 Part – 1 The Banks, London: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
55.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, (2005b), A Legal Framework for the Integration of Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Institutional Investment, October, London: Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.
56.
Fujita,T., Kanai,T., Teranishi,K., Yamamoto,Y. and CitigroupNikko (2004), ‘The Global Environment and Socially Responsible Investment: Environmental Technologies Fuelling Zones of Growth’, In: The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, pp. 33–37, Geneva: UNEP.
57.
GauthierC. (2005), ‘Measuring Corporate Social and Environmental Performance: The Extended Life Cycle Assessment’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 59, pp. 199–206.
58.
GarzH., KudszusV., and VolkC. (2004), ‘Insurance and Sustainability: Playing with Fire’, West LB AG Report, In: The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, pp. 47–50, Geneva: UNEP.
59.
GillesV., WrightA., AmusateguiL., CipellettiM. and UBS, (2004), ‘European Emissions Trading Scheme’, In: The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, pp. 41–46, Geneva: UNEP.
Grandmont, R., Grant, G., Silva, F. and Deutsche Bank (2004), ‘Beyond the Numbers – Corporate Governance: Implication for Investors’ In: The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, pp. 17–18, Geneva: UNEP.
62.
Group of 100 Incorporated (G100) (2003), Sustainability: A Guide to Triple Bottom Line Reporting, www.groupl00.com.au
63.
HaleK. (2003), ‘Corporate Law and Stakeholders: Moving Beyond Stakeholder Statutes’, Arizona Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, pp. 823.
HorriganB. (2002), ‘Fault Lines in the Intersection between Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility’, University of New South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 515.
66.
HustedB. W., and AllenD. B. (2000), ‘Is It Ethical to Use Ethics as Strategy?’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 27, Nos. 1–2, pp. 21–31.
67.
HuttonW. (2001), Putting Back the Pin Plc: Public Companies and a New Corporate Citizenship, London: The Industrial Society.
68.
Institute for Sustainable Futures (2005), Mainstreaming SRI: A Role for Government, Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology, Sydney
69.
IUCN, UNEP and WWF (1991), Caring for the Earth. A Strategy for Sustainable Living, Gland: Switzerland.
70.
JacksonD. F. (2004), Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry Into the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation, New South Wales Government.
71.
JonesT. M. (1995), ‘Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economies’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 404–437.
72.
Kennedy School of Government Corporate Responsibility Initiative (2004), Leadership, Accountability and Partnership: Critical Trends and Issues in Corporate Social Responsibility, Report of Launch Event, 4th March, Harvard University.
73.
KleinE., and Du PlessisJ. (2005), ‘Corporate Donations, the Best Interest of the Company and the Proper Purpose Doctrine’, University of NSW Law Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 69.
74.
KPMG (2005), International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting, June, KPMG.
KPMG (2005), The State of Sustainability Reporting in Australia, Sydney: KPMG, CAER and Deni Green Consulting Services.
77.
KurtzL. (1997), ‘No Effect, or No Net Effects? Studies on Socially Responsible Investing’,Journal of Investing, Winter, pp. 37–49.
78.
KytleB., and RuggieJ. (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility as Risk Management: A Model for Multinationals, Boston: Kennedy School of Government.
79.
LuisC. (2005), ‘People v. Profits: A False Dichotomy?’, University of California Davis Business Law Journal, Vol. 5/6.
80.
Mays (2003), Corporate Sustainability – An Investor Perspective, Department of Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia.
81.
McConvillJ., and JoyM. (2003), ‘The Interaction of Directors' Duties and Sustainable Development in Australia: Setting Off on the Uncharted Road’, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 116.
82.
McKagueK., and CraggW. (2005), Compendium of Ethics Codes and Instruments of Corporate Responsibility, September, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Schulich School of Business, York University.
MonksR., MillerA., and CookJ. (2004), ‘Shareholder Activism on Environmental Issues: A Study of Proposals at Large US Corporations 2000–2003’, Natural Resources Forum, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 317–330.
85.
NajamA. (2000), ‘World Business Council for Sustainable Development: The Greening of Business or a Greenwash?’,Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development 1999/2000, London: Earthscan.
86.
OECD (1976, 2000), Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, Paris: OECD.
87.
OECD (2004), Principles of Corporate Governance, Paris: OECD.
88.
OECD Watch (2005), Five Years On: A Review of the OECD Guidelines and National Contact Points, Amsterdam: Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations.
89.
ParkinsonJ. (1994), Corporate Power and Responsibility: Issues in the Theory of Company Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
RedmondP. (2005), Submission Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services Inquiry into Corporate Responsibility, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
92.
RedmondP. (2006), ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: An Overview’,Reform, Issue 87, 2005/06.
93.
SchroderM. (2003), Socially Responsible Investments in Germany, Switzerland and the United States: An Analysis of Investment Funds and Indices, Mannheim: Centre for European Economic Research.
94.
SethiS. P. (2003), Setting Global Standards, Guidelines for Creating Codes of Conduct in Multinational Corporations, London: John Wiley and Sons.
95.
SmithN. C. (1990), Morality and the Market: Consumer pressure for corporate accountability, London: Routledge.
96.
SolomonJ. F., SolomonA., and NortonS. D. (2002), ‘Socially Responsible Investing in the UK: Drivers and Current Issues’, Journal of General Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 1–13.
97.
SparkesR., and CowtonC. J. (2004), ‘The Maturing of Socially Responsible Investment: A Review of the Developing Link with Corporate Social Responsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 45–57.
SustainAbility Ltd/UNEP (2002), Trust Us – The Global Reporters 2002 Survey of Corporate Sustainability Reporting, SustainAbility Ltd/UNEP, www.sustainability.com
100.
SustainAbility (2005), The Changing Landscape of Liability: A Director's Guide to Trends in Corporate Environmental, Social and Economic Liability, London: SustainAbility.
101.
Teck Corp Ltd v Millar (1973), Delaware Law Review, No. 33, pp. 313–4.
102.
UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (2005), Environmental Key Performance Indicators: Reporting Guidelines for UK Business, London: UK DEFRA.
103.
UN (1992), Rio Declaration on Enironment and Development, Geneva: UN.
104.
UN (2000), Global Compact, Geneva: UN.
105.
UNCTAD (2004), Development and Globalisation: Facts and Figures, Geneva: UN.
106.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2002), Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry, Geneva: UNEP.
107.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2002), Financing for Sustainable Development, Geneva: UNEP.
108.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2002), Financing Sustainable Energy Directory: A Listing of Lenders and Investors, Geneva: UNEP.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2004a), The Materiality of Social, Environmental and Governance Issues to Equity Pricing, Geneva: UNEP.
118.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2004), Values to Value: A Global Dialogue on Sustainable Finance, Geneva: UNEP.
119.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2005), CEO Briefing on the Future of Climate Change Policy: The Financial Sector Perspective, Geneva: UNEP.
120.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2005), A Legal Framework for the Integration of Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Institutional Investment, October, Geneva: UNEP.
121.
UNEP Finance Initiative (2006), Show Me The Money: Linking Environmental, Social and Governance Issues to Company Value, Geneva: UNEP.
122.
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) (2000), Green Dividends? The Relationship between Firms' Environmental Performance and Financial Performance, www.epa.gov/ocempage
123.
VogelD. (2005), The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility, Washington DC: Brookings Institute Press.
124.
WaddockS. (2003), ‘Myths and realities of social investing’, Organization & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 369–380.
125.
WaddockS. (2004), ‘Creating Corporate Accountability: Foundation Principles to Make Corporate Citizenship Real’, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 313–327.
126.
WaddockS. A., and GravesS. B. (1997), ‘The corporate social performance-financial performance link’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 303–319.
127.
Wedderburn (1985), ‘The Social Responsibility of Companies’, Southey Memorial Lecture 1984, Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 4, No. 13.
128.
WelfordR. (2002), ‘Globalisation, Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Rights’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1–7.
129.
WellsH. (2002), ‘The Cycles of Corporate Social Responsibility: An Historical Retrospective for the Twenty-First Century’, Kansas Law Review, Vol. 51, November, pp. 77–140.
130.
WilliamsC. (2002), Symposium: ‘Corporations Theory and Corporate Governance Law. Corporate Social Responsibility in an Era of Economic Globalisation’,University of California Davis Law Review, No. 35, pp. 705.
131.
World Bank Group (eds: FoxT., WardH., and HowardB.), (2002), Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: A Baseline Study, October, Washington DC: World Bank Group.
132.
World Bank Group (2003), Strengthening Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility in Global Supply Chains, October, Washington DC: World Bank Group.
133.
World Bank Group (author: Ward, Halina), (2004), Public Sector Roles in Strengthening Corporate Social Responsibility: Taking Stock, Washington DC: World Bank Group.
