Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Binding rules or voluntary actions? A conceptual framework for CSR in shipping

  • Article
  • Published:
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The debates on the need for new approaches to govern the globalized maritime industry and to address the negative environmental and social impacts of shipping have been extensive during the last decade. Public regulation based on international conventions is universal and global in scope, but it is facing several implementation gaps. Private regulation in shipping can complement the public regulation, but it is partial in its scope both thematically and geographically, and it relies on actors’ commitment. Therefore, the central dilemma is how to effectively combine both public and private regulation in shipping in order to make it environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. Given a variety of private forms of regulation, this research concentrates on corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a special form of private self-regulation. Building upon a new institutional framework, this paper seeks to reconstruct the theoretical reasoning behind the expectations that the proliferation of CSR can improve the negative effects of shipping. Based on an extensive review of the literature, the following questions are addressed: (1) How does CSR function as a form of self-regulation in the shipping industry? (2) How can CSR as a form of self-regulation contribute to the renewal of maritime governance to ensure a better quality of shipping? The paper concludes with a discussion of the prospects for co-regulation to address the adverse impacts of shipping.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Extensive use of the term ‘governance’ in various disciplines (e.g. political science, management, organizational studies, economics) and its embeddedness in the political agenda beyond academia has led to substantial blurring of its substantive boundaries (Benz and Dose 2010; Stoker 1998). This paper adopts a broad understanding of governance, taking into account the existence of various ways in which governance denotes a capacity to ‘get things done’, drawing upon multiple actors, various rules that structure the actions of the actors and different modes of coordination between these actors (Kooiman 2003; McGinnis 2011). For the purpose of this paper, we define maritime governance as a process in which institutions are shaped, interpreted and reshaped.

  2. The main negative environmental impacts of shipping include harmful emissions to the air (SOx, NOx and PM) and CO2 emissions that contribute to global climate change (Gilbert 2013); the spread of alien species in ballast water and in the hulls of the vessels; pollution by oil and hazardous or toxic substances from incidental, operational and illegal charges; discharge of wastes from ships; pollution and physical impact though loss of ships and cargo; harmful underwater noise; and collisions with marine mammals (OSPAR Commission 2009). In addition, shipping causes coastal erosion and above-water noise.

  3. We would like to thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

  4. In the Bartle–Vass classification, CSR is the pure form of self-regulation, since the totality of regulatory practice (specification, administration, enforcement) is performed by the regulated entity.

  5. Based on publicly available sources, e.g. company www-pages and their CSR reports of the following companies: CMA CGM S.A., Evergreen, A.P. Moller-Maersk, COSCO, NYK, MOL, OOCL, Yang Ming, Tallink-Silja, and Wallenius Wilhelmsen.

References

  • Alderton T, Wichester N (2002) Globalisation and de-regulation in the maritime industry. Mar Policy 26:35–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen O (2012) Maersk Line: shipping hit hard by widespread corruption. Shippingwatch, article published 09 May 2012. http://shippingwatch.com/articles/article4644243.ece. Accessed 7 January 2014

  • Andersen M, Skjoett-Larsen T (2009) Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Supply Chain Manag Int J 14:75–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews RNL (1998) Environmental regulation and business “self-regulation”. Policy Sci 31:177–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arat L (2011) Corporate social responsibility in shipping companies in the Baltic Sea. Report, University of Turku, Centre for Maritime studies. http://www.merikotka.fi/julkaisut/cafecsrraportti_lauraarat.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2013

  • AS Tallink Grupp (2011) We engage. AS Tallink Grupp environmental and corporate social responsibility report 2010/2011. http://www.tallink.com/NR/rdonlyres/4BF69723-25BF-4E93-B0C537F73B065F68/0/We_Engage_ 201011_lowres.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2013

  • Asariotis R, Benamara H (2012) Maritime transport and the climate change challenge. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Balabanis G, Phillips HC, Lyall J (1998) Corporate social responsibility and economic performance in the top British companies: are they linked? Eur Bus Rev 98:25–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartle I, Vass P (2005) Self-regulation and the regulatory state—a survey of policy and practice, Research report 17, Center for the Study of Regulated Industries, School of Management, University of Bath. http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/cri/pubpdf/Research_Reports/17_Bartle_Vass.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Bemelmans-Videc M, Ristn R, Vedung E (1997) Carrots, stick and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P (2001) Mutual risk: P&I insurance clubs and maritime safety and environmental performance. Mar Policy 25:13–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benz A, Dose N (2010) Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung. Springer DE, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berg N, Storgård J, Lappalainen J (2013) The impact of ship crews on maritime safety. Publications of the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku A 64. http://mkkdok.utu.fi/pub/A64-impact%20of%20crews%20on%20safety.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013

  • Bloor M, Sampson H (2009) Regulatory enforcement of labour standards in an outsourcing globalized industry: the case of the shipping industry. Work Employ Soc 23:711–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor M, Pentsov D, Levi M, Horlick-Jones, H (2004) Problems of global governance of seafarers health and safety. Seafarers International Research Centre (SIRC), Cardiff University. http://www.sirc.cf.ac.uk/uploads/publications/ProblemsGlobalGovernance.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013

  • Bloor M, Datta R, Gilinskiy Y, Horlick-Jones T (2006) Unicorn among the cedars: on the possibility of effective “Smart Regulation” of the globalized shipping industry. Soc Leg Stud 15:534–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor M, Sampson H, Baker S, Walters D, Dahlgren K, Wadsworth E, James P (2013) Room for manoeuvre? Regulatory compliance in the global shipping industry. Soc Leg Stud 22:171–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börzel TA, Risse T (2010) Governance without a state: can it work? Regul Gov 4:113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brammer S, Jackson G, Matten D (2012) Corporate social responsibility and institutional theory: new perspectives on private governance. Socio Econ Rev 10:3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL (1998) Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory Soc 27:377–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL (2006) Institutional analysis and the paradox of corporate social responsibility. Am Behav Sci 49:925–938

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JL (2007) Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 32:946–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christ P (2009) Greenhouse gas reduction potential from international shipping. OECD and International Transport Forum Joint Transport Research Centre. Working Paper 2009/11. https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/68758/1/601768205.pdf. Accessed 16 December 2013

  • Clapp J (2005) Global environmental governance for corporate responsibility and accountability. Glob Environ Polit 5:23–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coady L, Lister J, Strandberg C, Ota Y (2013) The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the international shipping sector. A phase 2 research paper. http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/sites/liu/files/Publications/2013_Dec_CSR_UBC-Phase2_CSR-in-Shipping.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2013

  • Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ (2009a) Role of international policy in mitigating global shipping emissions. Brown J World Aff 16:145

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ (2009b) Role of international policy in mitigating global shipping emissions. Brown J World Aff 16:143

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett JJ, Winebrake JJ, Green EH, Kasibhatla P, Eyring V, Lauer A (2007) Mortality from ship emissions: a global assessment. Environ Sci Technol 41:8512–8518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coto-Millán P, Mateo-Mantecón I, Quesada JLD, Panela AC, Pesquera MÁ (2010) Evaluation of port externalities: the ecological footprint of port authorities, in: Coto-Millán P, Pesquera MA, Castanedo J (eds.), Essays on port cruise

  • Couper AD, Walsh CJ, Stanberry BA, Boerne GL (1999) Voyages of abuse, Seafarers, human rights and international shipping. Pluto Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSombre ER (2006) Flagging standards: globalization and environmental, safety, and labor regulations at sea. MIT Press

  • DeSombre ER (2008) Globalization, competition, and convergence: shipping and the race to the middle. Glob Gov 14:179

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSombre ER (2009) Voluntary agreements and the shipping industry. In: Potoski M and Prakash A (eds) Voluntary programs: a club theory perspective. MIT Press, pp. 133–156

  • DeSombre ER (2010) Flags of convenience and property rights on the high seas, in: Allen R, Joseph J, Squires D (Eds.), Conservation and management of transnational tuna fisheries. Wiley‐Blackwell, pp. 269–281

  • Det Norske Veritas (2004) Corporate social responsibility and the shipping industry—project report. Revision No. 1. http://www.he-alert.org/filemanager/root/site_assets/standalone_pdfs_0355-/HE00375.pdf. Accessed 13 December 2013

  • Detomasi DA (2007) The multinational corporation and global governance: modelling global public policy networks. J Bus Ethics 71:321–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doane D (2005) Beyond corporate social responsibility: minnows, mammoths and markets. Futures 37:215–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobers P, Halme M (2009) Corporate social responsibility and developing countries. Editorial Corp Soc Responsib Environ Mgmt 16:237–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doh JP, Guay TR (2006) Corporate social responsibility, public policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An institutional-stakeholder perspective. J Manage Stud 43:47–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehlers P, Borgese EM, Wolfrum R, Hoss C (2002) Marine issues: from a scientific, political and legal perspective. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

  • Fafaliou I, Lekakou M, Theotokas I (2006) Is the European shipping industry aware of corporate social responsibility? The case of the Greek-owned short sea shipping companies. Mar Policy 30:412–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frynas JG (2012) Corporate social responsibility or government regulation? Evidence on Oil Spill Prevention. Ecol Soc 17

  • Fu X, NG A, Lau Y-Y (2010) The impacts of piracy on global economic development: the case of Somalia. Marit Pol MGMT 37:677–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furger F (1997) Accountability and systems of self‐governance: the case of the maritime industry. Law Policy 19:445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert P (2013) Should have gone to Specsavers: Co-benefits of addressing sulphur and carbon emissions. In: 3rd International conference on technologies, operations logistics and modelling for low carbon shipping, UCL, London, 9–10 Sep 2013

  • Gjolberg M (2011) The political economy of corporate social responsibility. PhD dissertation. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/13346/dravhandling-gjolberg.pdf?sequence = 3. Accessed 02 December 2013

  • Graham-Rowe D (2004) Ship scrapping: breaking up is hard to do. Nature 429:800–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddock-Fraser J, Fraser I (2008) Assessing corporate environmental reporting motivations: differences between “close-to-market” and “business-to-business” companies. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manag 15:140–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haralambides HE (1998) Quality shipping: market mechanisms for safer shipping and cleaner oceans. Introduction of the book: Haralambides H (ed) Quality shipping: market mechanism for safer shipping and cleaner oceans. http://www.maritimeeconomics.com/book/export/html/81. Accessed 20 May 2013

  • Hargett TR, Williams MF (2009) Wilh. Wilhelmsen Shipping Company: moving from CSR tradition to CSR leadership. Corp Gov 9:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hassler B (2011) Accidental versus operational oil spills from shipping in the Baltic Sea: risk governance and management strategies. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 40:170–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Håvold JL (2005) Safety culture in a Norwegian shipping company. J Saf Res 36:441–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayter R (2004) Economic geography as dissenting institutionalism: the embeddedness, evolution and differentiation of regions. Geogr Ann Ser B Hum Geogr 86:95–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess M (2004) “Spatial” relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Prog Hum Geogr 28:165–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hukkinen J (1999) Institutions of environmental management. Constructing mental models and sustainability. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyvättinen H, Hildén M (2004) Environmental policies and marine engines—effects on the development and adoption of innovations. Mar Policy 28:491–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalli J, Saikku R, Repka S, Tapaninen U (2012) Maritime traffic externalities in the Gulf of Finland until 2030. Transport 27:92–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim GD (1978) Corporate social responsibility: an assessment of the enlightened self-interest model. Acad Manag Rev 3:32–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Klopott M (2013) Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: case of Poland. Marit Pol MGMT 40:439–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen OF, Hassler B (2011) IMO legislation and its implementation: accident risk, vessel deficiencies and national administrative practices. Mar Policy 35:201–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman J (2003) Governing as governance. SAGE

  • Koos S (2012) The institutional embeddedness of social responsibility: a multilevel analysis of smaller firms’ civic engagement in Western Europe. Socio-Econ Rev 10:135–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovács G (2008) Corporate environmental responsibility in the supply chain. J Clean Prod 16:1571–1578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lack D, Corbett JJ, Onasch T, Lerner BM, Massoli P, Quinn PK, Bates TS, Covert DS, Coffman D, Sierau B, Herndon S, Allan J, Baynard T, Lovejoy E, Ravishankara AR, Williams EJ (2009) Particulate Emissions from Commercial Shipping. Chemical, Physical and Optical Properties. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/2008JD011300

  • Lauer A, Eyring V, Corbett JJ, Wang C, Winebrake JJ (2009) Assessment of near-future policy instruments for oceangoing shipping: impact on atmospheric aerosol burdens and the Earth’s radiation budget. Environ Sci Technol 43:5592–5598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence R (2007) Corporate social responsibility, supply-chains and Saami claims: tracing the political in the Finnish forestry industry. Geogr Res 45:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee M-DP (2008) A review of the theories of corporate social responsibility: its evolutionary path and the road ahead. Int J Manag Rev 10:53–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little D (1991) Varieties of social explanation: an introduction to the philosophy of social science. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu C-S, Lin C-C, Tu C-J (2009) Corporate social responsibility and organisational performance in container shipping. Int J Logist Res Appl 12:119–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MAERSK, Social responsibility. http://www.maersk.com/sustainability/socialresponsibility/pages/socialresponsibility. aspx. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Maltezou R (2013) Greek shipowner jailed pending money laundering trial. Reuters, news published July 26, 2013. Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/26/us-greece-shipping-idUSBRE96P0WK20130726. Accessed January 7, 2014

  • Matten D, Moon J (2008) “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Acad Manag Rev 33:404–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire JB, Sundgren A, Schneeweis T (1988) Corporate social responsibility and firm financial performance. Acad Manage J 31:854–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moir L (2001) What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corp Gov 1:16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2013) National ocean service. Most ocean pollution begins on land. http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pollution.html. Accessed 16 December 2013

  • North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Obando-Rojas B, Welsh I, Bloor M, Lane T, Badigannavar V, Maguire M (2004) The political economy of fraud in a globalised industry: the case of seafarers certifications. Sociol Rev 52:295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OSPAR Commission (2009) Assessment of the impacts of shipping on the marine environment. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/media/assessments/p00440_Shipping_Assessment.pdf. Accessed 19 December 2013

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattberg P (2005) The institutionalization of private governance: how business and nonprofit organizations agree on transnational rules. Governance 18:589–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Progoulaki M, Roe M (2011) Dealing with multicultural human resources in a socially responsible manner: a focus on the maritime industry. WMU J Marit Aff 10:7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psaraftis HN, Kontovas CA (2010) Balancing the economic and environmental performance of maritime transportation. Transp Res Part Transp Environ 15:458–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasche A, de Bakker FGA, Moon J (2013) Complete and partial organizing for corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 115:651–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigue J-P, Comtois C, Slack B (2009) The geography of transport systems. 2nd edition. Taylor & Francis e-Library

  • Roe M (2008) Safety, security, the environment and shipping: the problem of making effective policies. WMU J Marit Aff 7:263–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe M (2012) Maritime governance and policy-making, 2013th edn. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson H, Bloor M (2007) When jack gets out of the box: the problems of regulating a global industry. Sociology 41:551–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seebens H, Gastner MT, Blasius B (2013) The risk of marine bioinvasion caused by global shipping. Ecol Lett 16(6):782–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world: a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. J Manag Stud 48:899–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott J, Sinnamon H (2009) Protecting American health from global shipping pollution: establishing an emission control area in U.S. waters. New York: Environmental Defense Fund Electronic. http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=9469

  • Sekimizu K (2012) Speech by the Koji Sekimizu, the Secretary-General, International Maritime Organisation (IMO) held at Seminar on CSR activities for the shipping industry, Singapore, 26 April 2012. http://www.imo.org/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/SpeechesByTheSecretaryGeneral/Pages/singapore-CSR.aspx. Accessed 17 December 2013

  • Selkou E, Roe M (2004) Globalisation, policy and shipping. Fordism, post-fordism and the European Union maritime sector. Edward Elgar Publishing

  • Shinohara M (2005) Quality shipping and incentive schemes: from the perspective of the institutional economics. Marit. Econ. 38 Logist. 7:281–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Skovgaard J (2012) Corporate social responsibility in the Danish shipping industry. Paper presented at DRUID Academy Conference 2012, Cambridge, UK. http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/businessschool/events_summary/event_7-10-2011-14-43-47. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Snider J, Hill RP, Martin D (2003) Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: a view from the world’s most successful firms. J Bus Ethics 48:175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobczak A (2006) Are codes of conduct in global supply chains really voluntary? From soft law regulation of labour relations to consumer law. Bus Ethics Q 16:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer R (2010) The role of governments in corporate social responsibility: characterising public policies on CSR in Europe. Policy Sci 43:49–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steurer R, Martinuzzi A, Margula S (2012) Public policies on CSR in Europe: themes, instruments, and regional differences. Corp Soc Responsib Mgmt 19:206–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50:17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stopford M (1997) Maritime economics. Routledge

  • Tallontire A (2007) CSR and regulation: towards a framework for understanding private standards initiatives in the agri-food chain. Third World Q 28:775–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan AK-J (2006) Vessel-source marine pollution: the law and politics of international regulation. Cambridge University Press

  • Tsoutsoura M (2004) Corporate social responsibility and financial performance. Working Paper Series, Center for Responsible Business, UC Berkeley

  • Tzavara D, Héritier A (2012) Quality and environmental regulation: verifying compliance along the supply chain, Bus. Pol. 14:Article 4

  • Veiga JL (2002) Safety culture in shipping. WMU J Marit Affaires 1:17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel D (2010) The private regulation of global corporate conduct achievements and limitations. Bus Soc 49:68–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius Wilhelmsen (2011) Delivering a sustainable future. Environmental sustainability report 2010. http://www.2wglobal.com/www/environment/esr2010/Resources/WWL_ESR_2010.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Wallenius Wilhelmsen (2013) Environmental objectives. http://www.2wglobal.com/www/environment/objectives/index.jsp. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Wang J, Park K, Khan N (2013) Maersk wants Hong Kong to ban dirty fuel to fight smog, January 6. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-06/maersk-wants-hong-kong-to-ban-dirty-fuel-to-fight-smog.html. Accessed 21 February 2013

  • Welford R (2004) Corporate social responsibility in Europe, North America and Asia. Survey results. Corporate Environmental Governance Programme, Centre of Urban Planning and Environmental Management, University of Hong

    Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D (2006) Corporate social responsibility: three key approaches. J Manag Stud 43:93–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf C, Seuring S (2010) Environmental impacts as buying criteria for third party logistical services. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 40:84–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Shipping Council (2014) Piracy. http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/security/piracy. Accessed 7 January 2014

  • Wuisan L, van Leeuwen J, van Koppen C (2012) Greening international shipping through private governance: a case study of the Clean Shipping Project. Mar Policy 36:165–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeung HW (2005) Rethinking relational economic geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 30:37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and the delegates of the IAME 2013 conference for their intellectual input. This research was financially supported by the Academy of Finland project ‘CHIP - clean shipping economics - shipping under the new paradigm’ (decision number 257968).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku, Joukahaisenkatu 3-5B, 20014, Turku, Finland

    Johanna Yliskylä-Peuralahti

  2. Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 42, Unioninkatu 33, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Daria Gritsenko

Authors
  1. Johanna Yliskylä-Peuralahti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daria Gritsenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daria Gritsenko.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yliskylä-Peuralahti, J., Gritsenko, D. Binding rules or voluntary actions? A conceptual framework for CSR in shipping. WMU J Marit Affairs 13, 251–268 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-0059-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-014-0059-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation