One interpretation of the link between these two releases is that KPMG is being hypocritical, examining corporate responsibility (CR) while acting irresponsibly itself. Another interpretation is that corporate responsibility reporting is not a testament of ethical purity, but rather the practice of disclosing and taking accountability for positive and negative corporate social responsibility (CSR) or sustainability performance.
Given that this is KPMG's fifth such survey since 1993 (the last iteration was in 2002), only the most jaundiced observer would consider the firm's Global Sustainability Services division too tainted to produce a worthwhile report. Adding to the reliability of the report is the fact that University of Amsterdam Professors Ans Kolk, Mark van der Veen, Jonatan Pinkse, and Fabienne Fortanier helped conduct the survey.
Subscribe
Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.
Posted on 29th June 2005
Latest Posts
-
IEMA appoints two new Board Directors
- 28th March 2024 -
Impact Assessment Network Volunteers receive International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) Regional Award
- 20th March 2024 -
IEMA launches digital campaign to share knowledge and inspire action in sustainability
- 6th March 2024 -
IEMA comments on 2023 being hottest year on record
- 9th January 2024 -
IEMA reacts to COP28 agreement to transition away from fossil fuels
- 13th December 2023 -
New IEMA social sustainability steering group – express your interest in joining
- 24th November 2023