By: María Candelas

For some years now, financial information has undergone a number of changes in an effort to bring Mexican accounting standards into line with international practice. The process of creating a more transparent, objective and reliable set of standards that are useful for those who prepare and use financial information will take several years more, and standards must be constantly adapted to the new ways of doing business in the world.

Work is underway on modifying the standards issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) in areas like financial instruments, leasing, insurance contracts and revenue recognition. On this last matter, the Mexican Financial Information Standards Council (CINIF) will shortly be issuing Financial Information Standards, (NIF, its acronym in Spanish) such as NIF D-1, Revenue, and NIF C-16, Impairment of Financial Instruments, among other projects.

In order to be useful, financial information must be comparable, a quality that results from the consistent application of accounting treatment to similar transactions carried out by the company. Both the NIF and the IFRS include a standard that indicates how to proceed when there is a lack of consistency resulting from changes that have occurred primarily in the valuation of various components of financial information, as a consequence of changes in standards or because of internal decisions to adopt a method that better reflects the company’s financial situation. In Mexican accounting practice, this rule is NIF B-1, Accounting Changes and Error Correction; in international accounting, it is International Accounting Standard (IAS) 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors.

As the names of both these standards suggest, they also deal with the effect of errors in financial information, which can cause inconsistencies and a lack of comparability. They also establish that the pursuit of comparability should not be permitted to restrain the evolution and improvement of financial information quality, and that any change that is made to maintain the usefulness of accounting information can be justified and commented on in the financial statements and notes.

NIF B-1, Accounting Changes and Error Correction establishes the following types of accounting changes:

• Change of specific standard
• Reclassifications
• Change in the structure of an economic entity
• Change in accounting estimates

NIF B-1 defines these accounting changes as follows:

Change of specific standard is a modification to the application of a specific standard due to: a) selection of a different method or procedure used for complying with an NIF, and or) the issuance, modification or repeal of a NIF.

Reclassifications are changes in the presentation of entries that make up financial statements which do not modify the total amounts of net profit (loss) or net change in equity.

Change in the structure of an economic entity is defined as a modification in the number of entities that are consolidated or combined into an economic entity, which results in the publication of financial statements that, given this new structure, are effectively a different company.

Change in accounting estimates is an adjustment to the book value of an asset due to a current assessment of its future benefits or adjustment in the book value of a liability provision resulting from a current assessment of obligations. Changes in accounting estimates are the result of modifications in the economic environment, new information, or technological change, among other factors, which increase the amount of information available for developing projections.

The first two types of accounting change–change of specific standard and reclassifications–should be applied retrospectively, in other words, the financial information should recognize the effects on profits or losses generated by the change in prior periods, less income taxes, in addition to their effect in the current period, as if the new method or procedure had always been applied.

The other two types of accounting change–change in the structure of an economic entity and change in accounting estimates–should be applied prospectively, meaning the financial information should recognize the effect of the change from the time it was adopted.

Errors that have been committed in the information on prior periods due to the incorrect application of some standard, an error in calculation or interpretation of information, or omission, should also be treated retrospectively, as if the error had not occurred.

Figure 1 sums up the application of NIF B-1, Accounting Changes and Error Correction:

Figure 1. Accounting changes and error correction

Companies are permitted to argue “impracticality” in retroactively applicable accounting changes and error correction when certain conditions are present, for example, if it is impossible to determine the cumulative effects even after an effort has been made to do so. However, the balances should be adjusted as of the start of the earliest period for which comparable information is presented.

The notes to the financial statements should disclose the causes of the accounting change or error, its effects on the financial information and, if such is the case, the reason why the principle of “impracticality” is being cited.

In subsequent periods, the new methods or procedures adopted will be applied in keeping with the basic concept or postulate of consistency, so that the financial information possesses the quality of comparability and is consistent with its basic purpose of being useful for its users.?

References

CINIF-IMCP (2013). Normas de Información Financiera (NIF), NIF B-1 Cambios Contables y Correcciones de Errores, 8a. ed., México, IMCP.

IFRS (2012). International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) – IAS 8, Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors, IFRS Foundation. Londres, Reino Unido, IFRS Foundation.

IFRS

Cinif

Cinif. News

By: Sandra Minaburo

Starting in 2012, public entities in Mexico mandatorily will have to submit their financial statements prepared with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) issued by the International Accounting Standard Board (IASB), in accordance with the press bulletin PRESS BULLETIN No. 056/2008, published on November 11, 2008 by Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores (National Banking and Securities Commission or CNBV as per initials in Spanish) in México.

According to the CNBV, this adoption will generate several benefits to the market and to the investing public, amongst other:

1. Enabling both Mexican and foreign analysts and investors to compare financial information prepared by Mexican issuers to that of foreign issuers, producing similar information in financial reports and providing equal parameters in different markets around the world.
2. Elaborating consolidated financial statements, in the case of economic groups that have presence in several countries.
3. 1.Promoting issuance of the foreign companies’ securities in the Mexican market and accept as valid the financial statements based on International Financial Reporting Standards.

Regardless of the benefits mentioned by the CNBV, it is important for entities to think about the impact of the adoption of international standards on the financial, operational and of course accounting decisions, and also the impact and changes users and analysts will have to make to use the financial information prepared under international standards.

Although in Mexico we have been immersed in a process of continuous change in accounting policies, the adoption of IFRSs may generate several problems and one of them is the amount of historical information that has to be gathered to present the financial information; the additional effort to adopt the new standards with new disclosure, presentation and evaluation requirements; the application of an accounting system whose fundamental basis is the professional judgment and the lack of previous experience that could be the framework of reference.

The European experience, as per the UNCTAD 2008 study, shows that the adoption of IFRS not only means a limited technical exercise of exchange of one set of accounting standards to another; it goes way beyond that. The European entities had to implement valuation and monitoring derivative instruments, acquire information systems that could carry double accounting and control records for tax and financial purposes in accordance with the IFRS requirements. These examples imply a situation that per se could affect the different organization areas and structures and also their internal control.

Some of the most relevant impacts the conversion to IFRS could bring about, are:

• The information and financial accounting systems shall be capable of generating consistent and robust information to present the financial information under international standards. They also generate information on the depreciation of assets in compliance with IFRS and capture new information for the disclosures required, such as information by segments, fair values of the financial instruments and transactions with related parties. The notes to the consolidated financial statements under IFRS shall reassess their existing systems and processes to guarantee that they can provide all the information required under the IFRS.
• The adoption of international standards could have a significant impact on the financial statements and therefore in the tax obligations. It is essential to carefully review the existing tax planning strategies to verify that they are still meeting their objectives with the changes undertaken by IFRS.
• IFRS may generate significant changes in the profits reported and in performance indicators. Therefore it is necessary to manage the markets’ expectations and to make analysts aware. Managers must understand the differences that could arise in the way performance is perceived both internally and also in the market and agree on the key messages that will be conveyed to investors and other stakeholders. The profits reported may defer the performance perceived due to the growing use of reasonable values and new restrictions in the existing practices. Consequently, it is necessary to report the appropriate information to adequately assess the performance of the business.

• By adopting IFRS, it could be necessary to renegotiate the contracts that refer to the figures reported, and some of them are the indicators and covenants agree upon with banks which at that time were determined under Mexican standards and that now would have to refer to the figures determined under international standards.
• When adoption is finished, there could be a net effect on the amount of the undistributed earnings, which could represent an increase or decrease in the distributable earnings in subsequent years in view of the new equity available. On the other hand, it is necessary to consider that IFRS are oriented to fair value, and frequently this results in unrealized profits or losses. It should be analyzed if these effects may be considered to calculate the distributable earnings, in order to guarantee that, at the end, the distribution of these earnings does not cause a disinvestment of the company.

Regardless of the impacts mentioned, any conversion project to international standards should start with an impact evaluation, diagnosis activities and an exercise on the possible scope. This will allow management to visualize the extent and complexity of the conversion and thus make better decisions on how to plan, structure and provide the resources for the project and determine the steps to be followed; also, how to decide what accounting policies are going to be adopted and what disclosures have to be made so that users can make their own decisions.

The guide to be followed by the Mexican entities is the International Standard IFRS 1, “Adoption for the first time of the IFRSs”, that establishes as a fundamental principle that the entity that adopts for the first time these standards should prepare its financial statements “as if it had always used IFRS”; that is, that it shall retrospectively apply all the international standards in effect on the closing date of the balance sheet of the first financial statements issued under international standards. In the first place, this implies a tremendous amount of work of gathering all the historical information of the Company, starting with the date the company was incorporated. But fortunately for these entities, this is not really that true because the IFRS 1 establishes some exceptions and exemptions to this fundamental principle in order for the adoption not to represent an onerous, long and almost impossible process.

The exceptions are mandatory. This means that the IFRS 1 prohibits its retrospective application. The exemptions are voluntary, this means that IFRS 1 allows the entity that is adopting for the first time IFRS 1 to determine whether to retrospectively apply one or more of the 16 exemptions established both in Appendix C as well as D of that Standard. It is broadly recommended that the entities carefully analyze the exemptions that IFRS 1 allows, since with their election benefits or damages could be generated.

Lastly, the entities should consider the fact that IFRS 1 binds them to submit three balance sheets, two income statements, two statements of comprehensive income and two cash flow statements, prepared under IFRS, and also a letter clearly specifying all the accounting policies adopted, all the effects of those policies and also the reconciliation between the figures obtained under Mexican standards and those obtained under the international standards. This note should be sufficiently clear, detailed and broad so that users may compare, analyze and make decisions with this information..?

Bibliography

Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores. (12 de noviembre de 2008). “Boletín de Prensa 056/2008″. www.cnbv.gob.mx. Recuperado el 3 de junio de 2010, de http://www.cnbv.gob.mx/recursos/056_Adopcion_IFRS.pdf

IASB. (3 de junio de 2010). “International Financial Reporting Standard No. 1″. www.iasb.org. Recuperado el 3 de junio de 2010 de http://www.iasb.org/IFRSs/IFRS.htm

UNCTAD. (Agosto 2008). www.unctad.org. “Practical implementation of international financial reporting standards. Lessons Learned”. Recuperado el 3 de junio de 2010, de http://www.unctad.org/templates/webflyer.asp?docid=10754&intItemID=1397&lang=1&mode=downloads

By: Alberto Napolitano

The organized public accountant’s profession in Mexico, formed by the Instituto Mexicano de Contadores Públicos (Mexican Institute of Public Accountants or IMCP as per initials in Spanish) reported the decision to incorporate as of 2012, the International Auditing Standards such as the standards that will regulate the financial information auditing works, of assurance and other related services, provided by independent public accountants in substitution of the current standards issued by the Comisión de Normas y Procedimientos de Auditoría (Auditing Standards and Procedures Commission or CONPA as per initials in Spanish) of the Institute.

In view of this communication there is a concern about knowing if the adoption of these standards will generate a significant change in the professional practice and the audit work performed, especially if you compare them with the standards issued by CONPA throughout time and that at present are the current point of reference to perform the work entrusted to independent public accountants. Consequently, it seems prudent to attempt some notations and accuracies on the International Auditing Standards (IAS) issued by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), as a branch of the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) of which the IMCP is one of the founding members.

In accordance with the preface of the international statements, the IAASB is committed to develop the standards that will be universally applied as a response to the interest of the public in general and of the accountant’s profession in the world regarding legislations or specific regulations of each country that rule the audit or assurance works, which are exclusive work to be performed by independent public accountants. In turn, the above mentioned preface states that if these laws or local regulations are in conflict with the IAS, it is understood that the work made in accordance with local rules will not comply with the IAASB. Therefore, no public accountant should say that his or her work was done in accordance with the IAS if those rules were not fully applied to the corresponding work.

The IAS’s content is structured by topics and documents, starting with (a) the structure of the standards; (b) a preface on international quality control, audit, revision and other assurance works’ standards and related services, and also a glossary of terms. In turn it has the following:

• International quality control standards
• International framework of reference for works to be certified

Afterwards, to incorporate the audits and financial information revision standards divided into:

• General principles and responsibilities
• Evaluation of risk and response to the risks assessed
• Audit evidence
• Use of the work of others
• Conclusions and auditor’s opinion
• Specialized areas
• International statements of audit practices (punctual procedures and the auditor’s communications))
• International standards for revision works (that include provisional financial information)

Of course, each one of the previous titles includes a series of rules or specific standards pursuant to provisions in those Titles. On the other hand, the content of the IAS also includes standards for:

• Works to verify other than audit or financial information revisions
• Related services (procedures agreed upon and gathering of information)
• Documents to be discussed and
• Studies

Through the content previously described, it can be understood that the IAS respond to a ruling other than the Auditing Standards and Procedures and Assurance (NAGA, as per initials in Spanish) issued by CONPA, and which the Mexican public accountants have used to support their assurance works, so that the user may feel confident of their opinion. The idea is not to make an analysis of the differences between the two sets of standards. However, it is possible to anticipate that the content of the NAGAs is not significantly different from the IAS and that if there are differences, they shall not be deemed to be significant, at least on its fundamental aspects.

It is interesting to point out that the IAS refer to assurance works in their framework of reference, when they mention that these are Works in which public accountants express a conclusion to increase the degree of trust of the assumed users, other than the party responsible for the result or measure of a significant issue (this is to be understood as information, a statement or a representation or measurement of an entity incorporated to the financial information, a process, specific criteria, contractual clauses, etc.); that is, that financial statements audit is included in the concept of “assurance work”. However, Mexican standards have a structure that segregate the audit work from other assurance work, when internationally although they are identified as different work, the assurance work includes all the public accountants work on which he gives a conclusion to make the user feel confident of the “main issue” (financial statements, assertions, amongst other) as a result of the work accountants perform within the applicable standards.

Another difference stems for the IAS structure with regard to the Mexican standards, it is the standard on quality control for firms that make audits and historical information reviews and other assurance works, that is seen in the initial chapter in these standards, as a topic that covers all the other professional standards and in accordance with the public accountants’ work. In the Mexican standards quality control of the work done by accounting firms, it is included in those related to the execution of the financial statements audit work. Again, both sets of standards relate to quality control, but a different weight is given to them when included in the structure of these standards. Under these considerations, one can see that in the IASs the works’ technical standards are preferred to assure the public accountant’s work in the ethical principles contained, first, in the Code of Ethics (in this case issued by IFAC) and second, in the International Quality Control Standards, that in its conception gathers several ethical requirements addressed to set policies and procedures designed to provide a reasonable security that the firm (accountants’ firm) and its personnel comply with the most relevant ethical principles.

Ethical requirements are included in the Code of Ethics issued by IFAC, and they include the fundamental principles related to:

• Integrity
• Objectivity
• Professional competence and due care
• Confidentiality
• Professional conductl

It is more a conceptual approach of independence in assurance work.

In turn, the International Quality Control Standard states that the Quality Control System of a public accountant’s firm should include the policies and procedures related to:

• Responsibilities of the firm’s quality control heads
• Ethic requirements
• Acceptance and continuity of relationship with clients and specific works
• Human resources
• Work performance
• Monitoring

Conceptually it can be concluded that the NAGAs that set the stage at present and guide the public accountant’s professional conduct in Mexico, jointly with the Code of Ethics also issued by the IMCP, are not significantly different from international standards, especially regarding the ethical principles and the quality control that should be established by public accountants in their assurance work when considering, again, that the technical standards are not significantly different, and therefore the adoption of the IAS by Mexican public accountants will not derive in inconvenient or significant changes in their professional activity, or even additional costs, as the case may be, provided the firms have set their standards in accordance with the NAGAs in effect.?

Más artículos relacionados:

The etymology of words can provide important knowledge and convey an experience directly from both the external and internal world. Human beings use language to understand, interpret and even transform the world (González, 1996). The concept and the term “responsibility” is not modern and appears for the first time in the English and French languages in the year 1787. The first usage of the term was political, in expressions such as “government responsibility” or “responsibility of the government” to express the nature by which the constitutional government acted under the control of the citizens. (Abbagnano, 1989). Social responsibility means the action of responding to society through the consequences of our acts in the exercise of freedom. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the specific response of a company to society – including both the positive and negative impact of its activities – which contributes to sustainable development. Today there are conflicting positions regarding the regulation and content of CSR reports demanded of the companies. This paper briefly describes the various reporting guidelines used throughout the world and their outlook.

Corporate Social Responsibility

To comply with the definition of CSR mentioned above, companies must increase their willingness to go beyond the implementation of a corporate government scheme, that is, the secular principle of exclusively protecting the owner (here, the shareholder). In contrast, corporate social responsibility seeks to use private property to achieve a social benefit, which both legal and corporate cultures regard with extreme suspicion. (Arjona, 2010).

This dilemma responds to the question of whether a company exists for the sole purpose of generating profits or if the adoption of socially responsible practices is a strategy that helps to generate value and, therefore, long-term sustainability.

There are many critics of capitalism who oppose its selfish principles. However, as stated by the philosopher André Comte-Sponville: “Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral, it is simply, amoral.” Capitalism seeks efficiency and effectiveness in the use of resources, and the practices of social responsibility do not go against this: doing the right thing does not have to be a non-profitable or non-competitive exercise.

In this regard, CSR has been the subject of several investigations in the last decades. In a review of the literature on the topic by Margolis and Walsh in 2001, they found 86 studies whose objective was to analyze the effects of CSR (independent variable) on the financial performance of companies. Most of the results (53 percent) pointed toward a positive relationship between CSR and financial performance. In contrast, only 5 percent of the investigations found a negative relationship between these variables; 24 percent, no relationship; and 18 percent, a mixed result.

Several authors have devoted themselves to studying the existence of a causal relationship between CSR and financial performance. Some argue that CSR improves financial performance by strengthening the reputation of the brand and benefitting its stakeholders. Others argue that companies with an outstanding financial performance have idle funds that can be devoted to sustainable practices. There is also the vicious circle theory, which establishes that CSR is both the cause and the consequence of a good financial performance, considering everything else constant.

In Mexico, there is not yet enough information about CSR and its relation to the competitiveness of companies. Some studies, such as the one conducted by Husted and Salazar, analyzed the practices of CSR of 52 firms in Mexico, as well as their ability to create competitive advantages. They found that of the total number of companies surveyed, 86 percent was involved in social action, with the area of health considered to be of greatest importance, followed by poverty relief programs and sports. They also reported that only 36 percent of the companies in their study actually measured the results of their activities, and that the Internet and the newspaper were the means utilized the most to publicize their social programs.

In most studies, the main problem has been how to measure Corporate Social Performance (CSP). There are various models, but the two most common are:

1. Corporate Reputation Index – This consists of evaluating the companies using certain attributes of the same to obtain a ranking. Fortune magazine publishes a yearly evaluation of more than 300 companies in 40 industries in the United States. This index has been a source of much criticism, because the attributes tend to be defined in abstract terms imposed by the researchers, leaving room for the personal interpretations of the evaluators. In addition, this is not a specific index for CSP, but for management in general.

1. Content Analysis – It assesses the extent to which CSP activities of the companies are published in various documents, especially in their annual report. The advantage of this technique is that once you choose the variables (subjectively), the process is more objective. However, it presents some limitations, as the analysis of content only indicates what companies say they are doing, which may differ from what they are actually doing.

Neither model represents very precise measurements for estimating the CSP, but so far these are the best tools we have.

In addition to the effort to measure the CSP and its possible correlation with the company’s financial results, there is also strong pressure internationally on the topic of socially responsible consumption, and training and education of CSP. The greatest promoters in this area have been the demands and expectations of the stakeholders, voluntary standards and international law. Today, new areas demanding accountability in reaching a holistic approach in CSP, include:

• Geopolitics – geographical breakdown of the markets, investments in countries in conflict, treaties with non-democratic countries.
• Environment – waste, emissions, recycling, water and energy consumption.
• Human and labor rights - child labor, forced labor, rate of absenteeism, discrimination.
• Animal rights – animal experimentation, organic food, sustainable fishing.
• Unethical practices – corruption, smuggling, bribery, fraud, money laundering.

To help companies measure their achievements and report on the progress in each one of the areas mentioned above, a series of global and national standards have been developed. The major standards used are described below:

1. The GRI is a Global Reporting Initiative that emerged, on the one hand, from the United Nations Environment Program, and on the other, from the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies. Its purpose is to ensure the quality, rigor and utility of sustainability reporting, which can be verified externally (Soní, 2010). The GRI launched the guidelines for sustainability reporting, which includes three elements of CSP – economic, environmental and social performance. According to a survey conducted by KPMG, 80 percent of the 250 companies of the Global Fortune publish information on environmental, social and corporate governance issues; 70 percent of the companies presenting sustainability reporting around the world use the guidelines of the GRI (KPMG, 2008).
2. The Global Compact is a voluntary international alliance founded by the United Nations at the Economic Forum in Davos, in 1999. This initiative seeks to promote the idea that the involvement of companies in social and environmental practices benefits both business and society in the long term. This pact is composed of 10 universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labor conditions, environment and anti-corruption. In 2007, the Global Compact, in partnership with the GRI, published a guide that incorporated the 10 principles of the Global Compact with the GRI guidelines. This alliance between the two initiatives is very important from the point of view of comparability. It should be emphasized that the two initiatives are complementary; however, the Global Compact does not oblige, but only recommends, the use of the GRI (Global Pact, 2007).
3. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) was founded in 1995. It is an association of 200 international companies from more than 35 countries and 20 industrial sectors that share a commitment to economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. The WBCSD supports the communication of the efforts and accomplishments through the guidance of the GRI. It has also developed a set of eco-efficient indicators, which combine economic and ecological aspects. The objective of these indicators is that they be flexible and general, so that they can be used for measuring, reporting and interpreting the level of eco-efficiency achieved by companies in different sectors (Soní, 2010)..

1. In 2004, the Mexican Institute of Standardization and Certification (IMNC) published the Mexican standard of social responsibility..This rule establishes procedures for the implementation and follow-up of CSR practices in public and private companies. The guidelines included in this document were used as a basis for generating the international standard ISO 26000, which is an international standard in development, elaborated by the International Organization for Standardization that will provide guidance and recommendations for implementing CSR operational practices. It is hoped that what was published in September 2010 will be for voluntary use and will not be certifiable. It includes aspects of corporative governance, transparency, human rights, labor practices, consumer protection, environment and community involvement. (Soní, 2010)..

So far, 918 companies in the world report under the GRI guidelines. There are 207 member organizations of the SBCSD, of which 90 are using the GRI methodology. However, it still lacks the use of one standard, which will enable the integration of different perspectives in a single report (Soní, 2010).

On the other hand, in addition to the previously mentioned reports, there is a sustainability index, which in September 2011 celebrated its 10 years of existence. It has taken a decade of changes for companies to be convinced that a socially responsible management ends up creating value in the long term. The recent summit in Copenhagen and the Sustainable Economy Law exemplify the importance of this new management model in the political and economic agenda (De Cubas & Sepúlveda, 2010). The Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI) is the first global index that analyzes the financial performance of the top 10 percent of the 2,500 companies listed on the Dow Jones global index in terms of sustainability. This index was developed in collaboration with Dow Jones Indexes organizations from the United States; the Stoxx Limited, from Europe; and the Group SAM (Sustainable Asset Management), a Swiss company and pioneer in responsible investment. (Soní, 2010).

Conclusions

The international experts in the field of Corporate Social Responsibility who met last March in Palma de Mallorca agreed in their demand for a certain degree of compulsion or regulation in the social responsibility reports that companies produce (Servimedia,es, 2010). We can end this paper by emphasizing that the human capacity for selflessness, rising above merely practical or pragmatic ends, is in effect an eminent expression of freedom. The danger inherent in so much reporting is that it can provoke what Nicol calls “reasons beyond our control,” that is, complying solely for pragmatic purposes to ensure the survival of the species, which is not the same as the existence of the human community (González, 1996). Responsibility is not mere causality, it is the possibility of foreseeing the effects of our own behavior and if necessary changing it to prevent a negative outcome. (Abbagnano, 1989). ?

Bibliography

Abbagnano, N. (1989), Diccionario de Filosofía (2a Edición en Español, 7a Reimpresión ed.). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

AliaRSE. (s.f.). AliaRSE. Recuperado el 25 de Marzo de 2010, de AliaRSE Alianza por la Responsabilidad Social Empresarial en México: http://www.aliarse.org.mx

Arjona, C. (21 de Marzo de 2010). La responsabilidad que interesa. (http://www.elpais.es, Ed.) El País – Nacional, p. 34.

Carazo Madrid, J. (22 de Marzo de 2010). Un encuentro para configurar la futura RSC europea. (C. N. Días, Ed.) Cinco Días, p. 18.

De Cubas, L., y Sepúlveda, R. (7 de Febrero de 2010). Las grandes empresas incorporan la RSC a sus estrategia de negocio. ABC, p. 8.

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Estados Unidos: New Society Publishers.

Gaos, J. (1982). Fragmentos de Heráclito. México: Enrique Hülsz Piccone.

González, J. (1996). El ethos, destino del hombre. México: FCE, FFyL, UNAM.

Husted, Bryan William y Salazar, José de Jesús (2005). Un estudio exploratorio sobre la estrategia social de empresas grandes ubicadas en México. Nuevo León: Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.

KPMG. (2008). International Survey of Corporate Responsibility Reporting. Reino Unido.

Margolis, Joshua y James Walsh. (2001). People and Profits: The Search for a Link Between a Company´s Social and Financial Performance. Estados Unidos: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates.

Pacto Global. (2007). Making the Connection. The GRI Guidelines and the UNGC Communication on Progress. Estados Unidos.

Servimedia.es. (26 de MARZO de 2010). Servimedia España Noticias. Recuperado el 29 de MARZO de 2010, de http://www.servimedia.es/Noticias/Seccion.aspx?seccion=24

Soní, G. (2010). Aplicación de Prácticas de Responsabilidad Social: Una perspectiva corporativa en México. México: ITAM Tesis.