Corporate Social Responsibility

An Analytical Approach to (Meta)Relational Models Theory, and its Application to Triple Bottom Line (Profit, People, Planet) – Towards Social Relations Portfolio Management ArXiv ID: 2402.18764 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Investigating the optimal nature of social interactions among actors (e.g., people or firms), who seek to achieve certain mutually-agreed objectives, has been the subject of extensive academic research. Using the relational models theory (describing all social interactions as combinations of four basic sociality ingredients: Communal Sharing, Authority Ranking, Equality Matching, and Market Pricing), the common approach revolves around qualitative arguments for determining sociality configurations most effective in realizing specific purposes, at times supplemented by empirical data. In the current treatment, we formulate this question as a mathematical optimization problem, in order to quantitatively derive the most suitable combination of sociality forms for dyadic actors, which optimizes their mutually-agreed objective. For this purpose, we develop an analytical framework of the (meta)relational models theory, and demonstrate that combining the four sociality forms to define a specific meaningful social situation inevitably prompts an inherent tension among them, codified by a single elementary and universal metarelation. In analogy with financial portfolio management, we subsequently introduce the concept of Social Relations Portfolio (SRP) management, and propose a generalizable methodology capable of quantitatively identifying the efficient SRP, which, in turn, enables effective stakeholder and change management initiatives. As an important illustration, the methodology is applied to the Triple Bottom Line (Profit, People, Planet) paradigm to derive its efficient SRP. This serves as a guide to practitioners for precisely measuring, monitoring, reporting and steering stakeholder and change management efforts concerning Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) within and / or across organizations. ...

Putting Integrity Into Finance: A Purely Positive Approach ArXiv ID: ssrn-2963231 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The seemingly never-ending scandals in the world of finance, accompanied by their damaging effects on value and human welfare, make a strong case for an additio Keywords: Corporate Scandals, Business Ethics, Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility, Governance Failures, Corporate Finance Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 1.0/10 Empirical Rigor: 0.5/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper presents a theoretical framework on integrity as a positive phenomenon, using philosophical arguments and definitions rather than mathematical models or empirical data. flowchart TD A["Research Goal<br>Integrate Integrity into Finance"] --> B["Methodology<br>Purely Positive Approach<br>Review of Scandals & Stakeholders"] B --> C["Data Inputs<br>Corporate Scandals &<br>Governance Failures"] C --> D["Analysis<br>Test Stakeholder Theory<br>& CSR Impact on Value"] D --> E["Key Findings<br>Integrity as Driver of Value<br>Risk Reduction & Welfare"] E --> F["Outcome<br>Positive Ethical Framework<br>for Sustainable Finance"]

Putting Integrity intoFinance: A Purely Positive Approach ArXiv ID: ssrn-1985594 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract The seemingly never ending scandals in the world of finance with their damaging effects on value and human welfare argue strongly for an addition to the current Keywords: Corporate Scandals, Business Ethics, Stakeholder Theory, Corporate Social Responsibility, Governance Failures, Corporate Finance Complexity vs Empirical Score Math Complexity: 2.5/10 Empirical Rigor: 1.0/10 Quadrant: Philosophers Why: The paper proposes a conceptual, non-mathematical theory of integrity as a positive economic factor, but lacks any empirical data, backtests, or implementation details. flowchart TD A["Research Goal:<br>How to integrate integrity<br>into financial decision-making?"] --> B{"Methodology"} B --> C["Data Inputs:<br>Corporate Scandals &<br>Finance Literature"] B --> D["Analytical Framework:<br>Stakeholder Theory &<br>Stakeholder Model"] C --> E["Computational Process:<br>Comparative Analysis of<br>Short-term vs Long-term Value"] D --> E E --> F["Key Finding:<br>Short-term profit maximization<br>violates stakeholder trust"] E --> G["Key Finding:<br>Long-term integrity creates<br>sustainable value creation"] F --> H["Outcome:<br>Purely Positive Framework for<br>Integrating Ethics & Finance"] G --> H