Advertisement

WikiRate.org – Leveraging Collective Awareness to Understand Companies’ Environmental, Social and Governance Performance

  • Richard MillsEmail author
  • Stefano De Paoli
  • Sotiris Diplaris
  • Vasiliki Gkatziaki
  • Symeon Papadopoulos
  • Srivigneshwar R. Prasad
  • Ethan McCutchen
  • Vishal Kapadia
  • Philipp Hirche
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9934)

Abstract

WikiRate is a Collective Awareness Platform for Sustainability and Social Innovation (CAPS) project with the aim of “crowdsourcing better companies” through analysis of their Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) performance. Research to inform the design of the platform involved surveying the current corporate ESG information landscape, and identifying ways in which an open approach and peer production ethos could be effectively mobilised to improve this landscape’s fertility. The key requirement identified is for an open public repository of data tracking companies’ ESG performance. Corporate Social Responsibility reporting is conducted in public, but there are barriers to accessing the information in a standardised analysable format. Analyses of and ratings built upon this data can exert power over companies’ behaviour in certain circumstances, but the public at large have no access to the data or the most influential ratings that utilise it. WikiRate aims to build an open repository for this data along with tools for analysis, to increase public demand for the data, allow a broader range of stakeholders to participate in its interpretation, and in turn drive companies to behave in a more ethical manner. This paper describes the quantitative Metrics system that has been designed to meet those objectives and some early examples of its use.

Keywords

Sustainability Open data Peer production Collective Awareness Crowdsourcing Corporate Social Responsibility 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by the WikiRate FP7 project, partially funded by the EC under contract number 609897.

References

  1. 1.
    Aguinis, H., Glavas, A.: What we know and dont know about corporate social responsibility a review and research agenda. J. Manag. 38(4), 932–968 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benkler, Y.: The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloomberg: Customers using esg data increased 76% in 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/bcause/customers-using-esg-data-increased-76-in-2014. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  4. 4.
    Brammer, S.J., Pavelin, S.: Corporate reputation and social performance: the importance of fit. J. Manage. Stud. 43(3), 435–455 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chatterji, A.K., Levine, D.I., Toffel, M.W.: How well do social ratings actually measure corporate social responsibility? J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 18(1), 125–169 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chatterji, A.K., Toffel, M.W.: How firms respond to being rated. Strateg. Manag. J. 31(9), 917–945 (2010)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christmann, P., Taylor, G.: Firm self-regulation through international certifiable standards: determinants of symbolic versus substantive implementation. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 37(6), 863–878 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Corporate Knights Capital: Measuring sustainability disclosure: ranking the world’s stock exchanges. http://www.corporateknights.com/wp-content/reports/2014_World_Stock_Exchange.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  9. 9.
    Doolin, B., Troshani, I.: Organizational adoption of xbrl. Electron. Markets 17(3), 199–209 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Commission: non-financial reporting. http://ec.europa.eu/finance/company-reporting/non-financial_reporting/index_en.htm. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  11. 11.
    Fonseca, A.: How credible are mining corporations’ sustainability reports? A critical analysis of external assurance under the requirements of the international council on mining and metals. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 17(6), 355–370 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gatziaki, V., Papadopoulos, S., Tsampoulatidis, Y., Diplaris, S., Mills, R., Kompatsiaris, Y.: Scalable analytics techniques for user contributions v2. Technical report D5.5.2, WikiRate Project, September 2015Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Global Witness and Amnesty International: Digging for transparency. https://www.globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/conflict-minerals/digging-transparency/. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  14. 14.
    Laufer, W.S.: Social accountability and corporate greenwashing. J. Bus. Ethics 43(3), 253–261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    legislation.gov.uk. Modern slavery act 2015t (2015). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/30/section/54/enacted
  16. 16.
    Marin, M.: How the wisdom of crowds can help defend human rights. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/10/wisdom-of-crowds-defend-human-rights/. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  17. 17.
    Mills, R., Paoli, S.D.: Interim report on user and community dynamics. Technical report D3.3.3, WikiRate Project, September 2015Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mills, R., Fish, A.: A computational study of how and why reddit.com was an effective platform in the campaign against SOPA. In: Meiselwitz, G. (ed.) SCSM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9182, pp. 229–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Prasad, A.: India’s new csr law sparks debate among ngos and businesses 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/india-csr-law-debate-business-ngo. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  20. 20.
    ProPublica: Free the files. https://projects.propublica.org/free-the-files/sessions/new. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  21. 21.
    Quartz: This is how much a bloomberg terminal costs. http://qz.com/84961/this-is-how-much-a-bloomberg-terminal-costs/. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  22. 22.
    SEC: Dodd-frank conflict minerals disclosure fact sheet. https://www.sec.gov/News/Article/Detail/Article/1365171562058. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  23. 23.
    Sestini, F.: Collective awareness platforms: engines for sustainability and ethics. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 31(4), 54–62 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sharkey, A.J., Bromley, P.: Can ratings have indirect effects? Evidence from the organizational response to peers environmental ratings. Am. Sociol. Rev. (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stockholm Environment Institute: A guide to representation concentration pathways. https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/A-guide-to-RCPs.pdf. Accessed 11 Mar 2015
  26. 26.
    United Nations Environment Programme. Raising the barGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verrecchia, R.E.: Discretionary disclosure. J. Account. Econ. 5, 179–194 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutantoputra, A.W.: Social disclosure rating system for assessing firms’ csr reports. Corp. Commun. Int. J. 14(1), 34–48 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Mills
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stefano De Paoli
    • 2
  • Sotiris Diplaris
    • 3
  • Vasiliki Gkatziaki
    • 3
  • Symeon Papadopoulos
    • 3
  • Srivigneshwar R. Prasad
    • 1
  • Ethan McCutchen
    • 4
  • Vishal Kapadia
    • 5
  • Philipp Hirche
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCambridge UniversityCambridgeEngland
  2. 2.Abertay UniversityDundeeScotland
  3. 3.CERTH-ITIThessalonikiGreece
  4. 4.Decko Commons e.V.BerlinGermany
  5. 5.WikiRate e.V.BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations