Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 17 - The United Nations Global Compact and the Global Reporting Initiative

  • Edited by Andreas Rasche, University of Warwick, Georg Kell
  • Foreword by Ban Ki-moon
  • Book:
    The United Nations Global Compact
    Published online:
    05 February 2012
    Print publication:
    16 June 2010, pp 293-314

  • Summary

    The same types of governance gaps and failures that produced the current economic crisis also constitute what the Special Representative has called the permissive environment for corporate wrongdoing in relation to human rights. The necessary solutions for both similarly point in the same direction: Governments adopting policies that induce greater corporate responsibility, and companies adopting strategies reflecting the now inescapable fact that their own long-term prospects are tightly coupled with the well-being of society as a whole.

    (Ruggie 2008, extract from paragraph 19)

    Introduction

    In the decade following their launch, the United Nations Global Compact and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) have developed into two of the most widely used global instruments to promote more responsible business practices in the field of sustainable development. Despite their different histories and organizational structures, their strategic positioning as a mutually reinforcing ‘value platform’ appears to have been successful. Separately, they have achieved pre-eminence in their respective fields. Together, they are increasingly widely used by companies to report their corporate responsibility goals, policies and performance.

    Looking ahead over the next decade, however, it is clear they will not achieve their respective missions without directly addressing a range of criticisms. These include that they are neither broad enough in terms of users, nor deep enough in terms of measurable impacts and accountability. There are also issues about the sustainability of their respective business models. In many respects, however, their shortfalls are not of their own making.