Cited by 36Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentsCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingCorporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability

Bridging corporate social responsibility and social impact assessment

Open access
Bice, Sara·2015·Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

Abstract

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social impact assessment (SIA) share foundational values. Yet even where a single corporation espouses CSR and carries out SIA, the two often pass like ships in the night. Drawing upon recent literature and experiences from a decade of applied social research in CSR and SIA in the resources industry, this professional practice paper identifies three key bridging points through which CSR and SIA could be better linked and strengthened in future: policy–practice gaps, voluntary versus involuntary regulation and internal versus independent implementation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14615517.2014.983710

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. 2011. Upper Hunter Mining Dialogue: report on the stakeholder survey for the NSW Minerals Council. Melbourne: Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. 2013. The state of CSR in Australia and New Zealand: annual review 2012/13. Melbourne: Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. Australian Stock Exchange. 2014. Corporate governance principles and recommendations. Canberra: Australian Stock Exchange.
  2. Forrestal L, Massola J. 2013. Minerals Council tied up in red and green tape: report. Australian Financial Review Sydney: Fairfax Media.
  3. Porter M, Kramer M. 2011 Jan. Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review.
  4. Scott WR. 1994. Institutions and organizations: toward a theoretical synthesis. In: Scott WR, Meyer JW, editors. Institutional environments and organizations. Thousan Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; p. 55-78.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bice, S.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Bice, Sara
Venue
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal
Published
2014-12-10
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
160-166
ISSN
  • 1461-5517 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5465
OpenAlex
W2067121370
Cited by
36
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability
Keywords
corporate social responsibility, social impact assessment, policy-practice gap, voluntary regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review