Search results

This study aims to analyze how organization development (OD) practitioners develop corporate citizenship for the purpose of increasing their organization’s capacity to practice corporate citizenship. Research shows that very few corporations have the organizational capacity to practice corporate citizenship. Evidence exists that ever more corporations adopt programs of corporate citizenship development to increase this capacity. However, there still is a general lack of a strategic understanding of how corporate citizenship development occurs. The potential of OD frameworks and tools for developing corporate citizenship have been highlighted. Nevertheless, how OD practitioners develop corporate citizenship has not been studied empirically so far.

A sociomaterial case study design was used. The work of six OD practitioners when developing corporate citizenship in one of the largest pharmaceutical corporations was studied over several months, based on interviews, observations and document analyses.

The findings presented offer model practices of corporate citizenship development, in the form of five core strategies and five core behaviors that increase an organization’s capacity to practice corporate citizenship.

With this study, the notion of corporate citizenship development has become established as a distinct research area. The study might encourage further research in this important niche area.

The findings have direct practical implications for at least seven different stakeholder groups.

The findings shed new light on both the epistemological and practical foundations of the concept of corporate citizenship, and hint to a new role of the fields of OD and human resource development in the twenty-first century.

The purpose of this paper is to treat disinformation and misinformation (intentionally deceptive and unintentionally inaccurate misleading information, respectively) as a socio-cultural technology-enabled epidemic in digital news, propagated via social media.

The proposed disinformation and misinformation triangle is a conceptual model that identifies the three minimal causal factors occurring simultaneously to facilitate the spread of the epidemic at the societal level.

Following the epidemiological disease triangle model, the three interacting causal factors are translated into the digital news context: the virulent pathogens are falsifications, clickbait, satirical “fakes” and other deceptive or misleading news content; the susceptible hosts are information-overloaded, time-pressed news readers lacking media literacy skills; and the conducive environments are polluted poorly regulated social media platforms that propagate and encourage the spread of various “fakes.”

The three types of interventions – automation, education and regulation – are proposed as a set of holistic measures to reveal, and potentially control, predict and prevent further proliferation of the epidemic. Partial automated solutions with natural language processing, machine learning and various automated detection techniques are currently available, as exemplified here briefly. Automated solutions assist (but not replace) human judgments about whether news is truthful and credible. Information literacy efforts require further in-depth understanding of the phenomenon and interdisciplinary collaboration outside of the traditional library and information science, incorporating media studies, journalism, interpersonal psychology and communication perspectives.

Dr Wallace Rubin, international consultant on soldering technology, was recently honoured with the 1994 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award for his work in helping to bring about the elimination of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents in the world's electronics industry. He is the only individual UK recipient of the 1994 award and one of just fifty individual and corporate recipients worldwide.

The modern revival of “Austrian economics” dates to the South Royalton conference of 1974 (Vaughn, 1994, pp. 103–111). At that time, neoclassical orthodoxy excluded evolutionary concepts. It was, in Ludwig Lachmann’s memorable phrase, “late classical formalism” (1977, p. 35). Opposition to neoclassical orthodoxy was part of the definition of Austrian economics. It formed part of our identity. Today it is no longer clear what “orthodoxy” is or whether current mainstream economics is “neoclassical” at all (Colander et al., 2004). One of the more salient changes in mainstream economics over the last 30 years is the introduction of evolutionary ideas. Mainstream economics is rich with evolutionary concepts. Evolutionary game theory, for example, is certainly a part of today’s standard toolbox. Thirty years ago, it did not even exist.¹ Some of the evolutionary ideas entering mainstream economics are similar or identical to ideas from the Austrian tradition. In this situation, it is no longer clear what the Austrian differentiae are. I hope this volume will help to sort out some of the issues relating to Austrian economics and one group of evolutionary ideas, namely, those of evolutionary psychology.

An agency relationship exists whenever one party (the principal) delegates authority to another (the agent). Because agents are assumed to be self-interested and to possess goals that diverge from the principal's goals, the principal must expend resources (called agency costs) to insure that agents act in her interest (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). In chains, the firm can choose as outlet managers either employees who are paid a salary (and perhaps a bonus) or franchisees who are granted the right to their outlet's profits after royalties and other expenses. In both cases, an agency problem is created because the firm delegates local decision-making to outlet managers whose interests are not perfectly aligned with that of the franchisor's (Rubin, 1978).