The terms “corporate social responsibility” (CSR), “sustainability”, “sustainable development” and “corporate sustainability” (CS) are critical terms for developing, analysing and evaluating public and private policy goals. These terms are used to make decisions about investment, policy development, and strategy creation. The terms emerged in different fields of endeavour at different points in time. Accordingly, they have different meanings; however, over time they have come to be used interchangeably mixing up policy agendas, confusing managers, regulators, activists and the public at large. We demonstrate that CSR is the best term for focusing on individual business organisations, “corporate sustainability” is an organisation level environmental policy, “sustainable development” is a public policy, and “sustainability” is the broadest term encompassing global local and organisational levels.

Retailers serve as the main interface between business and society. This study explores the Corporate Social Responsibility priorities and performance of the largest 23 global retailers. This set of global retailers, who have a major impact on society, were studied in terms of social, environmental and sustainability practices and strategy, and there performance was analysed and evaluated. The study uses a four-dimensional Social, Economic, Environmental, Supply Chain model for sustainability performance evaluation. We rely on data collected from annual reports, and find that global retailers have addressed the business-society interface in relatively balanced ways for the different dimensions of CSR. Further, our findings indicate that global retailers in different regions have different CSR priorities. In particular, the data indicates that the US retailers place a lower priority on supply chain sustainability performance, followed by the Australians, while European retailers place a higher priority. The study concludes that while global retailers all pay attention to the same dimensions of CSR and do so differently in the different regions, the variation and lack of significant progress indicates that there is a role for stronger government regulation. This study contributes to the literature by shifting the analysis from country to a global level, is more objective in relying on reported data rather than interviews or surveys and provides a new analytical tool.

For more than three decades there has been a growing interest, and concern, in the role that psychopathy plays in corporate affairs. The literature in this field is essentially interdisciplinary, drawing heavily on advances in neuroscience, behavioural and organisational psychology and criminology. In this paper, the authors open a line of enquiry on the role that law can play in the regulation, and remedies, available to deal with dysfunctional and psychopathic management. In this paper we argue that the impact of corporate psychopaths – particularly the sub-clinical types – is sometimes potentially devastating for the organisation, its mission, its employees and, where they exist, shareholders. In this article we outline the nature of corporate psychopathy and its impact on corporate entities and outline a range of potential legal remedies.

Criticism about the practical usefulness of academic accounting research produced in university business schools has been growing for some time. Due to accounting being an applied social science, many stakeholders question the relevance and value of research published in accounting journals to the accounting profession, practitioners and society in general. This paper highlights the various areas of criticism and discusses factors which underline the issue. While most of the criticism is anecdotal, this study sets about to empirically explore practitioners’ perception of academia, and research published in academic accounting journals. To better understand the situation in accounting, a comparison of two other applied academic disciplines is undertaken, involving medical and engineering practitioners. The study found that for accounting there were major differences in the sourcing of information, and significant differences between the other two applied fields with respect to the utilisation and the need for academic material. The findings lead to the conclusion that academic accounting researchers are now nearly totally divorced from the real-world profession of accounting. If we were to take a singular view on the purpose of academic accounting research, then the current situation could leave accounting researchers very vulnerable to adverse decisions with respect to the allocation of future government funding. The conclusions of this paper propose a series of thought-provoking questions about the current state of accounting research, in the hope that it will stimulate debate and generate responses from the accounting community and other stakeholders.