Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine to what extent the conventional stakeholder model mirrors managerial perceptions of the stakeholder environment in the Swedish fashion industry. The authors aim to adopt a novel approach to stakeholder measurement, as the traditional stakeholder model is constrained by its static two-dimensional nature, which captures neither the nuances of the stakeholder literature nor the dynamics of the firm’s stakeholder universe.

Empirically, the paper is based on findings from a survey among 492 Swedish fashion manufacturers and retailers.

The paper reports significant discrepancy between the conventional stakeholder model and the perceptions of real-life managers of the stakeholder environment. On the surface, their understanding is more in line with the managerial model of the firm from which the stakeholder literature originally departs. It is argued, however, that the discrepancy may be rooted in technology rather than theory as the stakeholder model is constrained by its static two-dimensional nature, which captures neither the nuances of the stakeholder literature nor the dynamics of the firm’s stakeholder universe. The paper, therefore, introduces an animated alternative to the conventional stakeholder model that provides a richer graphical representation of a firm’s stakeholder universe.

The paper refers to the open-ended questions in the survey in terms of descriptive statistics, and not the entire quantitative measures in the survey. This is because these questions are crucial to the authors’ approach to the suggested new stakeholder model, which is not tested quantitatively, but should be perceived as explorative – as a qualitative outcome of the survey. The survey is conducted through the web in the Swedish fashion industry only; thus; the authors’ suggested model needs further quantitative qualification, which the authors plead for in future research.

The originality of the paper is its novel approach to stakeholder measurement based on the perceptions of real-life managers of the stakeholder environment of the Swedish fashion industry. The traditional stakeholder model is constrained by its static two-dimensional nature, which the paper’s animated three-dimensional alternative provides a richer graphical representation of a firm’s stakeholder universe.

This paper aims to classify different corporate responsibility (CR) actions into three types – philanthropy, CR integration and CR innovation – and examines different forms of corporate engagement with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) through this categorization. The focus is on the societal and business outcomes of engagement.

The study analyzes 20 business‐NGO collaborations of three case companies – Hindustan Unilever, Nokia and Stora Enso. Cases are chosen based on revelatory sampling and data are gathered through documentary research of corporate sustainability reports, project reports and websites. Data analysis focuses on engagement forms, business and societal outcomes of engagement and utilizes a categorization of CR.

Different CR types involve different forms of cooperation ranging from sponsorship to partnership. Furthermore, CR integration and CR innovation seem to have more potential for long‐term positive business outcomes than philanthropy. In terms of societal outcomes, CR innovation seems to have the highest potential in creating local income‐generating mechanisms and supporting local self‐sufficiency. A main suggestion of the study is that more in‐depth case studies of CR projects should be conducted to develop and improve indicators for business and societal outcomes.

First, the paper applies a new pragmatic categorization of CR types. Second, it studies empirically a topic that has received relatively little attention – business‐NGO collaboration. Third, it analyzes the business and societal outcomes of different types of business‐NGO engagement.

Given today’s pressing societal challenges, business schools are increasingly expected to incorporate sustainability in their curricula. Yet, while research on corporate sustainability is on the rise, there is less innovation in teaching methods as most institutions rely on traditional methods to teach sustainability in the classroom. This paper aims to present the case-based debate as an appropriate teaching method for exposing students to the complexity of business sustainability issues.

The pedagogical background of the traditional case method and the debate method have been analyzed to provide an integrated understanding of the benefits of combining the two in the case-based debate. Building on the authors’ experiences from using case-based debates in the classroom, the paper describes what a case-debate is and how it can be implemented.

The paper offers a practical tool that can be used to teach sustainability in business schools and other educational institutions. Case-based debates can elicit active participation, support the development of students’ critical thinking skills and improve reflexivity by compelling students to seriously and actively engage with opposing viewpoints on a given issue.

This paper presents a hybrid approach for sustainability teaching that combines the benefits of the traditional case method with those of an in-class debate. The case-based debate method has received little attention in educational research and business sustainability teaching practice but can serve multiple teaching objectives relevant to sustainability teaching.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an issue-oriented substantive domain. Nevertheless, there are countless socio-economic, medico-techno-scientific, environmental and ethical philosophical questions that are far from being settled. In pursuit of a more desirable and sustainable future, this work problematizes current corporate responsibility (CR) research, education and practice.

This contribution provides a critical perspective on the future of CR research and practice and offers a way forward based on theoretical prescience.

The paper delineates a taxonomy of typical crises, categorized as burning, existential, overlooked and neglected crises. This taxonomy can be used as a tool for all forms of scenario analysis, empirical work and policymaking. This allows various futures issues to be given targeted interventions, assigned a focal theory, or allocated differentiated resources and appropriate time and space depending on their technical nature and the institutional context within which the issues unfold.

This paper argues that CR research risks losing steam despite its near ubiquitous nature and the major contributions hitherto made. Nevertheless, when problems are strategically thought out in the light of the taxonomy above, they provide promising avenues for insightful research and value-creating practice to meet the expectations of both business and society.

A profound chasm exists between CR practice and rhetoric. This void is particularly stark when we consider the interface between science and technology and developing economies. This paper explores desirable futures for CR while analyzing what is possible and probable.