This paper examines the hypothesis that religious firms are more socially responsible. By utilizing a novel measure of religiosity that reflects firm-level adherence to Christian values, we find that religiousness is positively associated with the CSR performance of large U.S. firms after controlling for state-level religiosity and various firm characteristics. Specifically, religious firms have better social and environmental responsibility scores and the documented positive relationship is particularly strong with respect to CSR strategy, product responsibility, and responsible use of resources. Overall, our empirical findings suggest that faith-driven corporate policies and values may encourage socially responsible behavior.
{"title":"Religiosity and Corporate Social Responsibility","authors":"Nebojsa Dimic, Veda Fatmy, Sami Vähämaa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3903184","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3903184","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the hypothesis that religious firms are more socially responsible. By utilizing a novel measure of religiosity that reflects firm-level adherence to Christian values, we find that religiousness is positively associated with the CSR performance of large U.S. firms after controlling for state-level religiosity and various firm characteristics. Specifically, religious firms have better social and environmental responsibility scores and the documented positive relationship is particularly strong with respect to CSR strategy, product responsibility, and responsible use of resources. Overall, our empirical findings suggest that faith-driven corporate policies and values may encourage socially responsible behavior.","PeriodicalId":350924,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Religion eJournal","volume":"50 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122083417","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 paper attempted to introduce the model used for reviewing spirituality at the workplace based on empirical studies relevant to the workplace spirituality. The paper presents simply Meta model of workplace spirituality with short snap of authors, key findings, basic model and propositions based on the reviewed literature. The paper claims that Meta model is the foundation for the further research that gives baseline for introducing research works.
The majority of the empirical studies concluded that people engaged in the organization express their spirituality in the workplace. Similarly, workplace spirituality has close connection with the different facets of work life. The paper recommends further researches in the area of spirituality specific to organizational work-settings.
{"title":"A Meta Model Used for Reviewing Spirituality at Workplace","authors":"Post Raj Pokharel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853035","url":null,"abstract":"This paper attempted to introduce the model used for reviewing spirituality at the workplace based on empirical studies relevant to the workplace spirituality. The paper presents simply Meta model of workplace spirituality with short snap of authors, key findings, basic model and propositions based on the reviewed literature. The paper claims that Meta model is the foundation for the further research that gives baseline for introducing research works. <br><br>The majority of the empirical studies concluded that people engaged in the organization express their spirituality in the workplace. Similarly, workplace spirituality has close connection with the different facets of work life. The paper recommends further researches in the area of spirituality specific to organizational work-settings. <br>","PeriodicalId":350924,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Religion eJournal","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117307819","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}
There should be no debate about whether taxes on food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks (‘sin taxes’) are regressive. It can be easily demonstrated empirically, and countless studies have done so. As with most indirect taxes, they take a greater share of income from the poor than from the rich in all plausible scenarios. Sin taxes are regressive if we look at income groups and are even more regressive if we look at individual consumers. They are regressive in the short term and over the life-cycle. Alcohol taxes tend to be less regressive than tobacco and soft drink taxes as a result of high-income groups spending more money on alcoholic drinks, but they remain regressive in most countries. Some advocates for sin taxes claim that they produce health benefits that are progressive, i.e. they disproportionately benefit the poor. Decades of high taxes on tobacco and alcohol in many different countries suggest that this is not true. Despite very high rates of duty, smoking is much more common among low-income groups in Britain and whilst alcohol consumption is lower among these groups, rates of alcohol-related harm are considerably higher. Early evidence casts serious doubt on whether sugary drink taxes have ‘progressive’ health benefits either. Low-income consumers do not seem to have particularly elastic demand for sugary drinks. Even if they enjoyed disproportionate health gains from sin taxes, they would still suffer a net loss to their welfare and the tax would remain regressive in the traditional sense. Excise taxes raise significant sums of money and are relatively easy to collect. It is unrealistic to expect government to be entirely funded by taxes on the rich. Not every part of the tax system can be progressive, but advocates should be honest about the disproportionately high burden of sin taxes on low-income households.
{"title":"Of Course Sin Taxes are Regressive","authors":"C. Snowdon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853609","url":null,"abstract":"There should be no debate about whether taxes on food, alcohol, tobacco and soft drinks (‘sin taxes’) are regressive. It can be easily demonstrated empirically, and countless studies have done so. As with most indirect taxes, they take a greater share of income from the poor than from the rich in all plausible scenarios. Sin taxes are regressive if we look at income groups and are even more regressive if we look at individual consumers. They are regressive in the short term and over the life-cycle. Alcohol taxes tend to be less regressive than tobacco and soft drink taxes as a result of high-income groups spending more money on alcoholic drinks, but they remain regressive in most countries. Some advocates for sin taxes claim that they produce health benefits that are progressive, i.e. they disproportionately benefit the poor. Decades of high taxes on tobacco and alcohol in many different countries suggest that this is not true. Despite very high rates of duty, smoking is much more common among low-income groups in Britain and whilst alcohol consumption is lower among these groups, rates of alcohol-related harm are considerably higher. Early evidence casts serious doubt on whether sugary drink taxes have ‘progressive’ health benefits either. Low-income consumers do not seem to have particularly elastic demand for sugary drinks. Even if they enjoyed disproportionate health gains from sin taxes, they would still suffer a net loss to their welfare and the tax would remain regressive in the traditional sense. Excise taxes raise significant sums of money and are relatively easy to collect. It is unrealistic to expect government to be entirely funded by taxes on the rich. Not every part of the tax system can be progressive, but advocates should be honest about the disproportionately high burden of sin taxes on low-income households.<br>","PeriodicalId":350924,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Religion eJournal","volume":"49 49","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131500240","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：