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
-
Upskilling and reskilling existing workers, in addition to new apprenticeships, is key to success for Skills England
- 22nd July 2024 -
IEMA focus on skills, adaptation and nature-based solutions in CCC report
- 18th July 2024 -
Labour's plan for economic growth must mean green growth – but there is a green skills gap looming
- 5th July 2024 -
As Labour plans to “slash red tape” for economic growth, YouGov poll finds 3 in 5 people want to increase public involvement in planning system
- 28th June 2024 -
Medtronic agrees partnership with IEMA to accelerate skills and standards in sustainability
- 21st June 2024 -
Landmark climate impact ruling for fossil fuel projects, cites IEMA guidance
- 20th June 2024