Search results

Presented at the “Disarm! For a Climate of Peace” meeting held on September 30–October 3, 2016 in Berlin and organized by the International Peace Bureau.

Not since the Great Depression of the 1930s have the activities of individual corporations come under as much scrutiny as they have over the past decade. With daily headlines about the savings and loan crisis, insider trading, layoffs and plant closures, green marketing, ingredient labeling practices, and influence‐peddling political contributions, the new watchwords in the business world are ethics, accountability, and social responsibility.

The purpose of this paper is to address the corporate governance implications of the US terror‐free investment screens, instituted both legislatively and voluntarily, on the operations of non‐US multinational corporations (MNCs) concerning international trade and foreign direct investment with nations designated as “State Sponsors of Terrorism.”

After a brief introduction to the issue of “terror‐free lists” and investment indexes and divestment screens, the paper summarizes the US Federal and State Laws pertaining to state sponsors of terrorism and their direct impact on international trade and investment transactions. The third section evaluates the success of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) indexes and investment screens compared to standard market investment indexes. The fourth section discusses the potential effects of terror‐free stock indexes and divestment (“social”) screens on corporate governance of non‐US corporations. In the final section, the paper offers business policy recommendations concerning international trade and foreign direct investment decisions and the listing of equity stock on the US financial market exchanges, and offer scholarly research questions addressing this issue.

Non‐US MNC managers should recognize, first, the importance of global corporate citizenship and reputation; second, the expansion of terror‐free investing criterion in ESG investment indexes and divestment screens; and third, the growth in the number of state government prohibitions on investing funds with foreign MNCs complicit with terror‐sponsoring states.

Exploratory in nature, this seminal paper evaluates an issue of emerging importance to non‐US MNC managers and directors concerned with potential political and economic repercussions of their international trade and foreign direct investment decisions.

Selected countries in the world have the technical capability of creating nuclear energy. Iran has striven to acquire the know-how to harness nuclear power and has been scientifically successful. However, it was sanctioned by the foremost world powers for doing so. The purpose of this paper is to analyze how the Iranian nuclear dossier came about and how it became a global issue, how it was resolved and who will benefit from its resolution.

The paper is designed to review the antecedents, to study the international community’s position, to analyze the outcomes and to make some recommendations. The study’s methodology is therefore analytical.

Access to nuclear technology is a political matter and those who are allowed to use it might be subject to the ideological preferences of those that have long had it. The holders of nuclear technology normally interact with allies to provide them with help to fulfill a nuclear power program under certain circumstances. If an individual country decides to go its own way and develop an indigenous technical capability, it will come under scrutiny and measures will be taken to control it. If those measures fail, sanctions and pressures will be employed to hamper the achievement of nuclear independence. In the absence of tangible results, negotiations will start and agreement may be reached based on the expertise of the two sides’ negotiators. A peaceful agreement could be a win-win solution if it respects the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved. Iran’s nuclear deal, if implemented properly, would be a success story and will shape future policies in the Middle East.

The first prerequisite for research is to have access to credible literature. When dealing with a new phenomenon, researchers face the challenge of not having sufficient material to develop a hypothesis or respond to all the questions that they have to pose. For Iran’s nuclear deal hundreds of articles have been written, but few books. Furthermore, because of the delicacy and confidentiality of the negotiations undertaken, one cannot interview the authorities involved either.

There are some Asian, Latin American and African countries with similar plans concerning nuclear energy. The paper will provide food for thought to evaluate the cost of their decisions and make suggestions for how they should proceed so that they can be perceived to be acting properly.

Although nuclear themes are largely political and a part of the security arena internationally, access to nuclear technology as a power source could have a significant impact on the social development of the countries pursuing nuclear energy programs. The paper studies the effect of the Iranian deal on health, education, social networks and civil society.

The author has been involved in part of the negotiating process and has, thus, been in a position to verify different information discussed in the global mass media. The subject is also a brand-new issue in international relations, since a peaceful solution was found for a scenario that had previously been solved by military intervention, without exception. Finally, it is interdisciplinary research with an innovative analysis approach.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the role played by leadership in divestment decision making and indeed during the corporate restructuring phase for retail organisations. In doing so, the paper aims to contribute to a growing body of research that seeks to develop understanding of the factors leading to retail divestment and the nature of corporate response to divestment.

A multiple case approach is utilised. The cases are selected from a database of international retail divestment activity over a longitudinal period.

The paper demonstrates that divestment can be a response to “failure”, however, support is also provided for the assertion that divestment can be a strategic decision to devote resources more efficiently elsewhere, either at home or abroad. A key finding is the role of leadership and managerial stability in relation to divestment and restructuring at home and abroad.

The themes presented in this paper are developed from observational data. The validity of the themes should be examined further through in‐depth, qualitative case studies of divestment activity. Future research could examine the role of new CEOs both in relation to the divestment itself and during the process of restructuring following divestment.

The role of leadership and managerial stability in divestment and corporate restructuring processes are highlighted. Insights are provided into the organisational response to divestment actions and the implications for further international strategies.

Academic debate on divestment has highlighted a wide range of reasons that lead to retailers divesting international operations and the strategic value of divestment. This paper adds to existing knowledge by examining the role of leadership within the divestment process.

This research uses the social science perspectives of institutions, ecological modernization and social movements to analyze the rationale used by the early-adopting universities of fossil fuel divestment in the USA.

Through analysis of qualitative data from interviews with key actors at the universities that divested their endowments from fossil fuels, the paper examines how institutions navigate competing logics and frame their rationale.

The results show that while many institutions relied on ecological values embedded in their missions to justify their decision to divest, many also continued to embrace an altered version of market logic.

This research is primarily limited by its small population size. If the number of adoptees increases in the future, quantitative analysis should look for statistically robust trends.

The implications of this research are that we can expect more universities to commit to divesting from fossil fuels if their mission statements provide them with cultural material to rationalize the decision, but also expect them to couch the decision in continued goals and concerns for fiduciary responsibility and the subsequent growth of their endowment.

Social actors engaged in the fossil fuel divestment campaign may take this research and conclude that they need to build their arguments around the existing institutional logics and cultural identity.

This paper contributes original primary data documenting how institutional actors confront dominant logics using both a mixture of internal cultural identity and the reframing of the legitimated market logics.

This chapter interrogates the idea that Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) is ‘making the world a better place’. It explores the issue of the societal impacts of SRI by addressing five main questions: (1) Is SRI a viable solution to society’s problems? (2) What are the impediments and limits to SRI’s ability to make a difference in society? (3) Where is ‘ethics’ in SRI? (4) How do we measure societal impacts of SRI? and (5) What is the future of SRI?

This chapter is a reflective piece debating the societal impacts of SRI. For the purpose of this chapter, a focus group was organised and interviews were conducted involving both academics and practitioners.

The chapter highlights and discusses several items that can either enhance or on the contrary hinder the societal impacts of SRI. Some of them are related to understanding of SRI, some concern the practice of SRI, while others are more of an epistemological nature. Based on the discussion, we propose three points of leverage that can enhance the capacity and ability of SRI to create change.

The chapter is a call for more research on the societal impacts of SRI. Research in SRI has dominantly focused on the technicalities of the activity and the financial implications, but has hardly touched upon the question of the societal impact.

There are three primary managerial implications highlighted in this chapter: rethink the notion of fiduciary duties, strengthen the interaction between asset owners and asset managers, and encourage changes in public policy.