M. Muñoz-Torres, Maria Angeles Fernández Izquierdo, Juana Maria Rivera Lirio, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero, E. Olmedo
Socially responsible investment (SRI) has grown substantially over time. It has emerged as an important financial system driver for corporate sustainability management. The objective of this paper is to analyse the critical issues in relation to corporate sustainability assessment as has been promoted in the financial markets through the assessment structures developed by SRI actors, i.e. indices and rating agencies. The challenge of this paper is to discuss about the different limitations of this SRI metrics, and whether the different indices and rating agencies are consistent with a strong sustainability approach in the way they are measuring the sustainability of a company.
{"title":"Responsible Investment as Market Driver for Sustainable Development","authors":"M. Muñoz-Torres, Maria Angeles Fernández Izquierdo, Juana Maria Rivera Lirio, Idoya Ferrero-Ferrero, E. Olmedo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2981700","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2981700","url":null,"abstract":"Socially responsible investment (SRI) has grown substantially over time. It has emerged as an important financial system driver for corporate sustainability management. The objective of this paper is to analyse the critical issues in relation to corporate sustainability assessment as has been promoted in the financial markets through the assessment structures developed by SRI actors, i.e. indices and rating agencies. The challenge of this paper is to discuss about the different limitations of this SRI metrics, and whether the different indices and rating agencies are consistent with a strong sustainability approach in the way they are measuring the sustainability of a company.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124190336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-24DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-51868-8_2
Beate Sjåfjell
{"title":"When the Solution Becomes the Problem: The Triple Failure of Corporate Governance Codes","authors":"Beate Sjåfjell","doi":"10.1007/978-3-319-51868-8_2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51868-8_2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123342636","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-09-23DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107337978.007
C. Villiers, Jukka Mähönen
In this Chapter, the authors explore the role of accounting, reporting and auditing in responding to sustainability. The Chapter focuses on the reporting and auditing requirements regarding the impact of corporate activity on the environment. As there is a strong and well-established corporate financial accounting culture all over the world, only few jurisdictions appear to be more advanced in sustainability accounting. Whilst recognition of the potential relevance of accounting to improvement of environmental performance might indicate that accounting and reporting could improve sustainable corporate behaviour, these mechanisms may also hinder such improvements. The Chapter explores the barriers and possibilities for improved sustainability through accounting and reporting as well as related audit and other assurance processes. Through its cross-jurisdictional analysis, the Chapter identifies a more progressive role for sustainability related reporting and auditing. The Chapter begins with a discussion of the conceptual considerations of accounting and sustainability, including the role of accountants and accounting as a process related to capitalism. After that, the Chapter provides an overview and summary of the accounting requirements across the jurisdictions represented in the Sustainable Companies Project. Reference is also made to recent developments at the European level with legislation to require non-financial disclosure. In the end, suggestions for future reforms are offered with particular attention paid to the concept of integrated reporting.
{"title":"Accounting, Auditing and Reporting: Supporting or Obstructing the Sustainable Companies Objective?","authors":"C. Villiers, Jukka Mähönen","doi":"10.1017/CBO9781107337978.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107337978.007","url":null,"abstract":"In this Chapter, the authors explore the role of accounting, reporting and auditing in responding to sustainability. The Chapter focuses on the reporting and auditing requirements regarding the impact of corporate activity on the environment. As there is a strong and well-established corporate financial accounting culture all over the world, only few jurisdictions appear to be more advanced in sustainability accounting. Whilst recognition of the potential relevance of accounting to improvement of environmental performance might indicate that accounting and reporting could improve sustainable corporate behaviour, these mechanisms may also hinder such improvements. The Chapter explores the barriers and possibilities for improved sustainability through accounting and reporting as well as related audit and other assurance processes. Through its cross-jurisdictional analysis, the Chapter identifies a more progressive role for sustainability related reporting and auditing. The Chapter begins with a discussion of the conceptual considerations of accounting and sustainability, including the role of accountants and accounting as a process related to capitalism. After that, the Chapter provides an overview and summary of the accounting requirements across the jurisdictions represented in the Sustainable Companies Project. Reference is also made to recent developments at the European level with legislation to require non-financial disclosure. In the end, suggestions for future reforms are offered with particular attention paid to the concept of integrated reporting.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124352760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the flourishing of judicialisation of rights across the world, scepticism is not in short supply. Critiques range from concerns over the democratic legitimacy and institutional competence of courts to the effectiveness of rights protections. This article takes a step back from this debate and asks why should we establish or persist with judicial review. For reasons of theory, methodology, and practice, it argues that closer attention needs to be paid to the motivational and not just mitigatory purposes for judicial review. The article examines a range of epistemological reasons (the comparative advantage of the judiciary in interpretation) and functionalist reasons (the attainment of certain socio-political ends) for judicial review and considers which grounds provide the most convincing claims in theory and practice.
{"title":"Why Judicial Review?","authors":"M. Langford","doi":"10.5617/OSLAW2351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5617/OSLAW2351","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the flourishing of judicialisation of rights across the world, scepticism is not in short supply. Critiques range from concerns over the democratic legitimacy and institutional competence of courts to the effectiveness of rights protections. This article takes a step back from this debate and asks why should we establish or persist with judicial review. For reasons of theory, methodology, and practice, it argues that closer attention needs to be paid to the motivational and not just mitigatory purposes for judicial review. The article examines a range of epistemological reasons (the comparative advantage of the judiciary in interpretation) and functionalist reasons (the attainment of certain socio-political ends) for judicial review and considers which grounds provide the most convincing claims in theory and practice.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"261 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121144962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditional company reporting requirements concentrate on financial reporting, consisting of the balance sheet, the profit and loss account and the notes. A consensus exists that sustainability is hindered by the traditional accounting regime in which the emphasis on financial reporting has been at the expense of the social and environmental reporting requirements, leaving companies opportunities to escape full accountability for their externalities. Non-financial reporting gives additional information, especially on the environmental and societal impacts of a company’s activities. Integrated reporting tries to combine both financial and non-financial elements. The most important proponent of integrated reporting, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), regards integrated reporting as “a process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value creation. An integrated report is a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value in the short, medium and long term.” This Chapter focuses on companies’ reporting requirements and considers especially whether changes in the European Union’s (EU) reporting requirements for business entities are necessary to fulfil the duties set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and whether the recent and pending new EU non-financial reporting requirements are sufficient to fulfil those duties. This Chapter explores this development and how it is likely to be affected by the more international progress towards integrated reporting. The Chapter also considers the prospects of success for the integrated report from the sustainability perspective, especially compared with the recent amendments in the EU law. It will suggest that whilst there is much promise in the EU plans and the IIRC’s plans, a number of potential limits will need to be addressed and new amendments proposed if full success is to be achieved. Our conclusion is that the integrated report presents an opportunity to close the information gap and to avoid any disconnect between financial and non-financial information, and so fulfil the requirements of Article 11 TFEU, but its success depends on the inclusion of a number of factors in the development and implementation of integrated reporting, presented at the end of the Chapter.
{"title":"Article 11: Integrated Reporting or Non-Financial Reporting?","authors":"C. Villiers, Jukka Mähönen","doi":"10.4324/9781315767864-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767864-7","url":null,"abstract":"Traditional company reporting requirements concentrate on financial reporting, consisting of the balance sheet, the profit and loss account and the notes. A consensus exists that sustainability is hindered by the traditional accounting regime in which the emphasis on financial reporting has been at the expense of the social and environmental reporting requirements, leaving companies opportunities to escape full accountability for their externalities. Non-financial reporting gives additional information, especially on the environmental and societal impacts of a company’s activities. Integrated reporting tries to combine both financial and non-financial elements. The most important proponent of integrated reporting, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), regards integrated reporting as “a process founded on integrated thinking that results in a periodic integrated report by an organization about value creation over time and related communications regarding aspects of value creation. An integrated report is a concise communication about how an organization’s strategy, governance, performance and prospects, in the context of its external environment, lead to the creation of value in the short, medium and long term.” This Chapter focuses on companies’ reporting requirements and considers especially whether changes in the European Union’s (EU) reporting requirements for business entities are necessary to fulfil the duties set out in Article 11 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and whether the recent and pending new EU non-financial reporting requirements are sufficient to fulfil those duties. This Chapter explores this development and how it is likely to be affected by the more international progress towards integrated reporting. The Chapter also considers the prospects of success for the integrated report from the sustainability perspective, especially compared with the recent amendments in the EU law. It will suggest that whilst there is much promise in the EU plans and the IIRC’s plans, a number of potential limits will need to be addressed and new amendments proposed if full success is to be achieved. Our conclusion is that the integrated report presents an opportunity to close the information gap and to avoid any disconnect between financial and non-financial information, and so fulfil the requirements of Article 11 TFEU, but its success depends on the inclusion of a number of factors in the development and implementation of integrated reporting, presented at the end of the Chapter.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130597354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter argues that the mandatory nature of the environmental integration principle has important procedural and substantive implications for the area of State aid law and policy. The requirement to integrate environmental protection requirements into all stages of state aid law and policies warrants a reconsideration of the strict effects-based approach in the analysis of environmental aid. Moreover, Article 11 TFEU obliges the European Commission to design its exemption policies in a way that promotes sustainable development and guarantees a high level of environmental protection. The current approach in the Guidelines on Environmental and Energy State Aid (EEAG) does not seem to provide adequate mechanisms for integrating environmental concerns into state aid policy when the objective of a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment is taken as a benchmark. The chapter concludes by way of illustrating the significant implications of Article 11 TFEU for the nature of environmental aid granted as well as the division of supervisory powers between the Commission and the Member States.
{"title":"Sustainable State Aid: A Full Environmental Integration into the Eu's State Aid Rules?","authors":"A. Wiesbrock","doi":"10.4324/9781315767864-5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315767864-5","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter argues that the mandatory nature of the environmental integration principle has important procedural and substantive implications for the area of State aid law and policy. The requirement to integrate environmental protection requirements into all stages of state aid law and policies warrants a reconsideration of the strict effects-based approach in the analysis of environmental aid. Moreover, Article 11 TFEU obliges the European Commission to design its exemption policies in a way that promotes sustainable development and guarantees a high level of environmental protection. The current approach in the Guidelines on Environmental and Energy State Aid (EEAG) does not seem to provide adequate mechanisms for integrating environmental concerns into state aid policy when the objective of a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the environment is taken as a benchmark. The chapter concludes by way of illustrating the significant implications of Article 11 TFEU for the nature of environmental aid granted as well as the division of supervisory powers between the Commission and the Member States.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125861069","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes rules for negligent misrepresentation in insurance contract law. Before contract signature, the applicant can be asked by the insurer to fill in a questionnaire concerning the risk, and may then omit or make untrue statements about facts. Such misrepresentation is considered negligent by the court when it is unclear the misrepresentation was due to a mistake or intentional.Rules of negligent misrepresentation differ significantly across jurisdictions. For example, the rule of common law allows the insurer to rescind the contract, whereas the German rule does not allow the insurer to reduce cover at all. Other rules, that differ in the strictness of the consequences for the insured, apply in other European countries, and yet others have been proposed in current attempts to harmonise both American and European insurance contract law. This article allows for an evaluation of these rules through an analysis of the degree to which the insured should be allowed to lower coverage in case of negligent misrepresentation.On the one hand, a strict rule renders it easier for an insurer to separate different types of risk without having to use other costly means of separation such as a deductible. On the other hand, a strict rule exposes the insured, who may have committed a mistake, to risk. In this trade-off, the optimal rule depends, among other factors, on the cost for the insurer of auditing types when claims are presented, on whether the insurer can commit to an auditing strategy, on the risk aversion of the insured, and on the likelihood for the insured of making a mistake.
{"title":"Optimal Rules of Negligent Misrepresentation in Insurance Law","authors":"Henrik Lando","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2531622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2531622","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes rules for negligent misrepresentation in insurance contract law. Before contract signature, the applicant can be asked by the insurer to fill in a questionnaire concerning the risk, and may then omit or make untrue statements about facts. Such misrepresentation is considered negligent by the court when it is unclear the misrepresentation was due to a mistake or intentional.Rules of negligent misrepresentation differ significantly across jurisdictions. For example, the rule of common law allows the insurer to rescind the contract, whereas the German rule does not allow the insurer to reduce cover at all. Other rules, that differ in the strictness of the consequences for the insured, apply in other European countries, and yet others have been proposed in current attempts to harmonise both American and European insurance contract law. This article allows for an evaluation of these rules through an analysis of the degree to which the insured should be allowed to lower coverage in case of negligent misrepresentation.On the one hand, a strict rule renders it easier for an insurer to separate different types of risk without having to use other costly means of separation such as a deductible. On the other hand, a strict rule exposes the insured, who may have committed a mistake, to risk. In this trade-off, the optimal rule depends, among other factors, on the cost for the insurer of auditing types when claims are presented, on whether the insurer can commit to an auditing strategy, on the risk aversion of the insured, and on the likelihood for the insured of making a mistake.","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"144 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134461156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the light of the definition communicated by the European Commission concerning social entrepreneurship, this article discusses three corporate structures which were introduced to better support and enable social enterprises in Belgium, the UK and Greece. Drawing on inspiration from these national corporate laws, this article reflects on their innovative approaches regarding corporate purpose, corporate governance and accountability applicable to social enterprises
{"title":"Improving the Legal Environment for Social Entrepreneurship in Europe","authors":"T. Lambooy, Aikaterini Argyrou","doi":"10.54648/eucl2014013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eucl2014013","url":null,"abstract":"In the light of the definition communicated by the European Commission concerning social entrepreneurship, this article discusses three corporate structures which were introduced to better support and enable social enterprises in Belgium, the UK and Greece. Drawing on inspiration from these national corporate laws, this article reflects on their innovative approaches regarding corporate purpose, corporate governance and accountability applicable to social enterprises","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115653354","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
It is a well-institutionalised notion that information subjected to assurance (audit) by third parties contributes to better quality information for decision making. In the field of sustainability reporting, who are providing assurance and how is quality regulated? What are the challenges of regulating sustainability assurance through standards? What role can hard law play to strengthen reporting and assurance as tools to support sustainable companies?
{"title":"Regulating Third Party Assurance Engagements on Sustainability Reports: Insights from the Swedish Case","authors":"Amanda Sonnerfeldt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2471522","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2471522","url":null,"abstract":"It is a well-institutionalised notion that information subjected to assurance (audit) by third parties contributes to better quality information for decision making. In the field of sustainability reporting, who are providing assurance and how is quality regulated? What are the challenges of regulating sustainability assurance through standards? What role can hard law play to strengthen reporting and assurance as tools to support sustainable companies?","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"81 3","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120921542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
After decades of debate, new global norms are emerging in the field of human rights that clearly define a company's social responsibility. The UN and the OECD have adopted these new standards which impose a due diligence duty on companies to avoid human rights abuses related to the corporate activities. But how well do the new standards fit with existing European law and policy governing responsible business? The paper examines some recent comparative law research, including topical legislation recently proposed in France
{"title":"Due Diligence: A Compliance Standard for Responsible European Companies","authors":"Mark B. Taylor","doi":"10.54648/eucl2014016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.54648/eucl2014016","url":null,"abstract":"After decades of debate, new global norms are emerging in the field of human rights that clearly define a company's social responsibility. The UN and the OECD have adopted these new standards which impose a due diligence duty on companies to avoid human rights abuses related to the corporate activities. But how well do the new standards fit with existing European law and policy governing responsible business? The paper examines some recent comparative law research, including topical legislation recently proposed in France","PeriodicalId":211727,"journal":{"name":"University of Oslo Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122431509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：