Search results

The purpose of this study is to examine and interpret the characteristics of social responsibility in general, and business responsibility in particular, that were evident during a period in European history that was plagued by widespread social problems and change. Based on that interpretation, the authors explore the lessons those characteristics may have for social responsibility in a contemporary world that is facing similar conditions.

The paper presents a qualitative analysis of the proceedings of the Bienfaisance Congress held in Frankfurt in 1857, where societal leaders from different nations met to answer the question, who has responsibility for whom, and for what? The authors use grounded theory, as it is operationalized in what is known as the “Gioia template,” to conduct a structured analysis of this particular text, and to in turn produce a theoretical interpretation of how that question was answered.

The interpretation from this study is that congress participants articulated certain established dimensions of responsibility (individual, organizational, national), as well as one new dimension (international), and did so by differentiating boundaries of responsibility; in turn, the authors suggest that these dimensions and boundaries work together to form a nested system of responsibilities.

There is limited empirical evidence available that documents the variety of responsibility-based initiatives that were being conducted during the 19th century. An analysis of the congress proceedings allows us to gain a better understanding of how the 19th-century world, particularly the upper echelons of European society, approached the question of under what conditions actors in different domains have responsibility for another. While the implications are limited by the analysis of the proceedings of one congress that was attended by elites, they do provide a snapshot of how Europe sought to articulate a system of bounded responsibilities during a time of widespread social problems and change.

Although the nested system of responsibilities framework that emerged from the grounded theory analysis is not applicable to all situations, it should sensitize policymakers and business leaders to the need to address social problems in a systemic way.

The authors both present a systems-based framework for understanding how responsibility is differentiated among actors (individual, organizational, state and international) and demonstrate how a theoretical interpretation of historical documents can be accomplished through the use of grounded theory, as operationalized through the Gioia template.

This study aims to present how a historical governance mechanism (a statutory rule of profit allocation) could answer the practical question of profit allocation, thereby proposing a methodology to enhance future quantitative studies.

The rule sets profit allocations to a predetermined set of stakeholders in corporate charters. It could be seen as a tool used by historical organisations to enact corporate social responsibility (CSR). The authors propose a straightforward way to calculate the payout ratios promised by this rule to each stakeholder. This methodology was applied to shareholders and used to calculate the promised dividend payout ratios.

This rule constitutes a natural experiment from which modern organisations could learn to implement the most relevant profit-allocation schemes given their CSR strategy. The authors propose calculating a promised payout ratio that would allow scholars to empirically examine the rule and its effects and provide accurate recommendations to these organisations.

This mechanism allows the study of profit allocations made to stakeholders (not limited to shareholders or employees like it is usually done). The promised payout ratio makes future quantitative investigations possible.

Modern organisations could use the CSR mechanism to allocate profits continuously in formats that would best fit their strategy and environment.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first article to examine the statutory rule of profit allocation per se, which proposes a new methodology to calculate payout ratios promised by the rule. The idea is to investigate their impact and provide recommendations for modern organisations to adapt.

Within a few days, the National Disaster Management Agency’s COVID-19 Fund (NADMA) has collected RM 5.5 m in donations from individuals and companies. These data shows that voluminous Malaysians are willing to help although they are in a difficult situation. Grounded in the Social Responsibility theory, this paper aims to examine the factors that motivate infaq (donation) behaviour in Malaysia during Movement Control Order (MCO).

The quantitative questionnaire survey method was used to obtain the data. This research’s unit analysis was of individuals who had done any help during COVID-19 MCO in Malaysia. The respondents were from all states in Malaysia, 20 years old and above and constituted of all races.

Although the religiosity factor did not play a significant role as a moderator, the results of the study found that all factors from the social responsibility theory had a significant positive relationship to Infaq behaviour during an emergency.

Identifying the vital driving factors that determine the infaq offer makes it possible for fundraisers to entirely focus on developing better approaches that can increase the role that these driving factors can play and possibly improve the impact on those previously unaffected factors.

From the authors’ knowledge, the research paper on helping effort during an emergency is minimal, let alone the research on infaq behaviour. This paper’s originality lies in the relationship between infaq behaviour, emergency and social responsibility theory which has never been explored before by other researchers.

This paper aims to map how the debate concerning the relevance of management research historically evolved to (a) determine if B-schools and management researchers have been uninterested bystanders, as critics posit, or if they have had a relevant role, and (b) discover if a pathway for management research becoming socially relevant has been established by such debate.

This study performed a citation network analysis of the scientific literature concerning the relevance of management research. The network had a total of 1,186 research papers published between 1876 and 2018.

The results show that from a minimal to peripheral role at the beginning and middle stages, management researchers have rather taken over this debate since the 1990s; the key components of the citation network reveal a strong convergence on what needs to be done, but no convergence on how to do it; and the debate has failed to generate actual change.

This study maps the debate concerning the relevance of management research since its historical inception using a method underused in management history research. It reveals the main path of the debate and the journals that echoed such debate.