Sustainability Practices at Hotels and BnB Establishments …
343
development. These processes of understanding can be seen as a part of process of
Collective learning (Oxenswärdh 2011).
Process of understanding one’s responsibility is, however, a more unexplored
concept—unlike understanding the mission—and it has to do with operator’s own
approach in question the nature of the professional obligation to consider themselves
obliged on assignment.
To illustrate the difference between the terms, it would be quite possible finding
cases where assignments understanding of a co-worker is high, i.e. it is a clear
picture of the tasks they believe the decision maker expects be implemented. Despite
this understanding, responsibility taking can be low, i.e. a number of different—e.g.
moral/ethical/cultural—causes, may hamper actor’s accountability to really carry out
the assignment. One way to express the distinction between mission understanding
and the responsibility of understanding is to assume that the former rests on the legal
and the latter on legitimate grounds. Concepts of legality and legitimacy disclose
relations between justice and morality. Legality focuses on social actions in a formal
sense and is sanctioned by the state, e.g. by orders and rules of law. Legitimacy is
more unspoken value system that has nothing to do with the formal legal system
but in stead rests on ethical foundations (Bertilsson 1987; Oxenswärdh 2011). At the
core of mission understanding exists seemingly even understanding of responsibility.
Responsibility understanding is formed in the core of actor’s competences. Thus, it
is further emphasized that actors’ responsibilities also include understanding of the
approach to change and development.
10 CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility
In recent years there has been significant discussion in the business, academic, and
popular press about “corporate sustainability.” This term is often used in conjunction
with, and in some cases as a synonym for, other terms such as “sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility.” According to Wilson (2003) the concept
of corporate sustainability borrows elements from four more established concepts:
(1) sustainable development, (2) corporate social responsibility, (3) stakeholder theory, and (4) corporate accountability theory. Sustainable development sets out the
performance areas that companies should focus on, and also contributes the vision
and societal goals that the corporation should work toward, namely environmental
protection, social justice and equity, and economic development. Corporate social
responsibility contributes ethical arguments and stakeholder theory provides business arguments as to why corporations should work towards these goals. Corporate
accountability provides the rationale as to why companies should report to society
on their performance in these areas.
Bergman and Klefsjö (2012) state that CSR is about creating a clear picture
internally of how the organization today affects its stakeholders and other actors, and
develop routines and approaches that strive to minimize any negative effect from the
organization’s processes and products on these groups and their environment.
343
development. These processes of understanding can be seen as a part of process of
Collective learning (Oxenswärdh 2011).
Process of understanding one’s responsibility is, however, a more unexplored
concept—unlike understanding the mission—and it has to do with operator’s own
approach in question the nature of the professional obligation to consider themselves
obliged on assignment.
To illustrate the difference between the terms, it would be quite possible finding
cases where assignments understanding of a co-worker is high, i.e. it is a clear
picture of the tasks they believe the decision maker expects be implemented. Despite
this understanding, responsibility taking can be low, i.e. a number of different—e.g.
moral/ethical/cultural—causes, may hamper actor’s accountability to really carry out
the assignment. One way to express the distinction between mission understanding
and the responsibility of understanding is to assume that the former rests on the legal
and the latter on legitimate grounds. Concepts of legality and legitimacy disclose
relations between justice and morality. Legality focuses on social actions in a formal
sense and is sanctioned by the state, e.g. by orders and rules of law. Legitimacy is
more unspoken value system that has nothing to do with the formal legal system
but in stead rests on ethical foundations (Bertilsson 1987; Oxenswärdh 2011). At the
core of mission understanding exists seemingly even understanding of responsibility.
Responsibility understanding is formed in the core of actor’s competences. Thus, it
is further emphasized that actors’ responsibilities also include understanding of the
approach to change and development.
10 CSR, Corporate Social Responsibility
In recent years there has been significant discussion in the business, academic, and
popular press about “corporate sustainability.” This term is often used in conjunction
with, and in some cases as a synonym for, other terms such as “sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility.” According to Wilson (2003) the concept
of corporate sustainability borrows elements from four more established concepts:
(1) sustainable development, (2) corporate social responsibility, (3) stakeholder theory, and (4) corporate accountability theory. Sustainable development sets out the
performance areas that companies should focus on, and also contributes the vision
and societal goals that the corporation should work toward, namely environmental
protection, social justice and equity, and economic development. Corporate social
responsibility contributes ethical arguments and stakeholder theory provides business arguments as to why corporations should work towards these goals. Corporate
accountability provides the rationale as to why companies should report to society
on their performance in these areas.
Bergman and Klefsjö (2012) state that CSR is about creating a clear picture
internally of how the organization today affects its stakeholders and other actors, and
develop routines and approaches that strive to minimize any negative effect from the
organization’s processes and products on these groups and their environment.