Search results

The events surrounding the financial crisis of 2008 are well known, and subject to a broad level of agreement. Less accepted are theories regarding the larger context within which this crisis was able to unfold. Much has been made of the financialization of the American economy and the lax regulation of new financial instruments, both of which stem from the trend toward a laissez-faire economic policy that has characterized the United States since the late 1970s. I do not take issue with these claims. Instead, I argue that these developments have an earlier and deeper source: a breakdown in the ability of large American corporations to provide collective solutions to economic and social problems, a phenomenon that I term “the decline of the American corporate elite.” From a group with a relatively moderate political perspective and a pragmatic strategic orientation, this elite, through a series of historical developments, became a fragmented, largely ineffectual group, with a high degree of societal legitimacy but a paradoxical lack of power. I trace the history of this group, from its origins in the early 1900s, through its heyday in the post-World War II period, to its decline beginning in the 1970s and escalating in the 1980s. I argue that the lack of coordination within the American business community created the conditions for the crises of the post-1980 period – including the massive breakdown of 2008 – to occur.

Corporations vary widely around the world, yet our understandings of “the corporation” have been decisively influenced by the peculiar American version, with dispersed shares traded on a stock exchange and a matrix of institutions orienting them toward the North Star of share price. Moreover, even as this American model has shaped the terms of debate around the corporation, it no longer operates in its ancestral homeland, where ownership is increasingly concentrated, assets and employment are increasingly dispersed, and corporations are disappearing from the stock market. In this afterword, I underscore some themes from the articles in this volume and suggest some thoughts on research and theory in an increasingly post-corporate world.

A large and growing literature examines the explicit social responsibility practices of companies. Yet corporations’ greatest consequences for social welfare arguably occur through indirect processes that shape the social fabric that sustains generosity and mutual support within communities. Based on this logic, we theorize and test a model that suggests two pathways by which large corporations affect community philanthropy: (1) through direct engagement in community philanthropy and (2) by indirectly influencing the efficacy of community social capital, defined as the relationships among community members that facilitate social support and maintenance of social welfare. Our analysis of United Way contributions in 136 US cities over the 46 years from 1952 to 1997 supports our model. We find that the presence of corporations weakens the contributions of both elite and working-class social capital on community philanthropy. Our findings thus contribute to a novel view of corporate social responsibility based on how corporations influence the social capital of the communities in which they are embedded.

The over 125-year-old economic miracle called the Corporation is suddenly shaken in its foundations. The corporate business world is rapidly changing not only in the USA, but also across the globe. The front covers of business magazines and dailies, once dominated by names and faces of “Corporate Giants,” are now being replaced with success stories of great startups and small business entrepreneurs. The reasons for these radical changes progressively reveal the imperfections existing in the current corporation and the business boardroom paradigm. For over a century, huge corporate entities spawned by capitalism have established and entrenched themselves in their respective industry arenas and have since been ruling the world, dominating money, capital, cash, and market opportunity. Once they provided solutions to people’s employment and career needs, they have made a fortune for themselves thereby. In the course of their evolution, the businesses have transformed into corporations, seeking people’s money for doing business and, in turn, giving a share of proportionate ownership to the investor people in the form of dividends and capital gains. Such a brilliant method of raising capital has empowered the corporations to grow and expand beyond physical and political boundaries. Today, however, the corporations are run by the BOD, most of whom are representing gigantic promoter-investor institutions. That is, the main administrative role is now replaced by private equity firms and hedge funds that provide the required capital but who also exert undue pressures on CEOs to focus on short-term strategies that have massive profitability potential, thus defying the usual business management model and paradigm the CEOs were trained for in B-schools. The massive CEO exodus that has migrated from the traditional corporations to newly created startups and smaller business entrepreneurial ventures has also made the corporation an endangered species. In such a market turbulence, how do we redefine, redesign, and reinvent the morally embattled corporation? This chapter explores solutions.

We explore the significance of social ontology and its capacity to inform the specification of organizational status, architecture and capacities. We consider how different conceptions of social ontology are critical for explicating a range of epistemological and socio-economic questions concerning organizations and develop a research agenda oriented to studying these issues from the perspective of management and organization studies.

This interorganizational discussion covers Astley and van de Ven's (1983) Organizational Analysis Matrix and key information to understand a broader, macro discussion including the purpose of organizations in society as well as overview the interorganizational relationships between the for-profit sector (i.e., businesses and corporations) and the specific sector of higher education. A consideration of motives, return on investment expectations, and interorganizational behavior is explored. This chapter highlights the complex nature of higher education and the for-profit realm, including inconsistent third-party support and intermingling from the government. Highlights from Sethi's (1975) seminal article serves as the basis for measurement and future expectations in a three-state schema for classifying corporate behavior.

This chapter squarely attributes DEI responsibility to powerful corporations that have historically benefitted from a history of discrimination against people of color and recommends a path forward that embraces DEI-PR-CSR intersections by placing DEI within a CSR office rather than in HR.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, lawyers and judges used history for various purposes. Their works reflected the trends in historical treatments done by historians but was produced for instrumental ends. They drew upon history in their work of making the law and in shaping the profession. Lawyers and judges used history to justify existing law, to bolster calls for change in the law, to provide a defense against critique of the profession, or to provide a shining example for the profession to emulate. This long view of the use of law by the legal profession contextualizes the much-commented phenomena of law office history, which has proved a subject of a contention between the professions of law and history.

This contribution analyses marketing strategies of transnational corporations operating in the field of consumer goods in contemporary Egypt. Using anthropological methodology, I explore the interrelations between rural marketing and consumer intifada, and note that in contrast to commonly held views about the homogenisation of local consumer cultures, in the sense of a Coca-Colaisation process, corporate communications strategies and product policies over the past decade have been increasingly taking cultural spheres of meaning into account in their effort to penetrate the Egyptian mass market. Various indicators show that the relevance of producing and marketing standardised goods has been diminishing as compared to the key importance of adapting global products to the local setting with its various cultural and political components.