Search results1 – 10 of over 121000
This paper aims to conceptualize how business and society co-evolve their efforts to maximizing the greatest well-being of the greatest number following a…
This paper aims to conceptualize how business and society co-evolve their efforts to maximizing the greatest well-being of the greatest number following a conscious-unconscious, staged, dialectical process.
This study used a conceptual framework linking eight components of well-being (economic, environmental, social, cultural, psychological, spiritual, material and physical), with stages of consciousness and the co-evolution of business and society.
Stages of consciousness – traditionalist, modernist, post-modernist and integral – moderate both the pace and direction with which business and society co-evolve to the greatest well-being of the greatest number across eight components of well-being.
This is a conceptual framework which integrates existing empirical relationships, but the overall framework itself is yet to be empirically tested.
The whole process of maximizing well-being can become more conscious for both business and society. This requires making unconscious components conscious and becoming conscious of the inseparability of the eight components of well-being as a counter-balanced set.
Businesses and societies can maximize well-being across eight inseparable components. But implementing this is a staged process requiring progressing populations through stages of consciousness. Earlier stages lay the platform for a critical mass of people able to integrate the eight components.
Knowledge of well-being is dominated by disciplinary disconnection and bivariate studies; yet, current meta-crises and calls for post-conventional leaders indicate the importance of an integrated multidisciplinary well-being model which explains past efforts of business and society, diagnoses current problems and points towards more viable paths.
While there has been an explosion of theoretical work in the field of Business and Society over the past several years, much of this work still reflects a key…
While there has been an explosion of theoretical work in the field of Business and Society over the past several years, much of this work still reflects a key philosophical assumption about the way business and society should be viewed that has been operative in the field since its beginnings. This assumption undergirds the title for the field and has infused itself into stakeholder theory, normative theory, and social contract theory, which are the main theoretical approaches that have emerged in the field. This basic assumption is critically analyzed and questioned in this article, and another philosophical framework, one based on American Pragmatism and not based on this assumption, is offered as an alternative way to view the corporation and its relationship to society. The implications of this alternative for the Business and Society field are then explored.
The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual…
The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.
Reviews the development of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept and its four components: economic, legal, ethical and altruistic duties. Discusses different…
Reviews the development of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept and its four components: economic, legal, ethical and altruistic duties. Discusses different perspectives on the proper role of business in society, from profit making to community service provider. Suggests that much of the confusion and controversy over CSR stem from a failure to distinguish among ethical, altruistic and strategic forms of CSR. On the basis of a thorough examination of the arguments for and against altruistic CSR, concurs with Milton Friedman that altruistic CSR is not a legitimate role of business. Proposes that ethical CSR, grounded in the concept of ethical duties and responsibilities, is mandatory. Concludes that strategic CSR is good for business and society. Advises that marketing take a lead role in strategic CSR activities. Notes difficulties in CSR practice and offers suggestions for marketers in planning for strategic CSR and for academic researchers in further clarifying the boundaries of strategic CSR.
This chapter opens up a question central to the mission of the business in society field as it has evolved since the formation of division in the Academy of Management…
This chapter opens up a question central to the mission of the business in society field as it has evolved since the formation of division in the Academy of Management (AOM): What are the (future) distinctive competencies of business in society scholarship? We first empirically demonstrate that core topics to the business in society field, as represented by the Social Issues in Management (SIM) Division of the AOM, are now disseminated broadly throughout the management academy, represented by AOM. We call this dissemination the popularity paradox, because it demonstrates that SIM is not well connected with other divisions, that is, sub-disciplines of management despite that they are now regularly dealing with its core questions. Given that SIM’s (and business in society’s) traditional foci are now widely dispersed, the authors argue that it is time for business in society scholars, with SIM as proxy, to begin tackling new core issues that put growing civilizational threats around sustainability and the consequent need for system change and transformation front and center. In a sense, the authors argue that business in society scholars need to return to their roots of seriously questioning the roles and functions of businesses in society through a critical lens that asks and seeks to answer – today’s emerging new and tough questions, though the questions now emphasize the sustainability of human civilization as we know it.
The origins of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been widely attributed to the work of scholars, and business managers as well, in North America and Western…
The origins of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been widely attributed to the work of scholars, and business managers as well, in North America and Western Europe. Inevitably, however, as the economic interaction of individual firms and entire nations has grown over the past several decades — call it globalization — so too has the concept and the practice of CSR spread throughout the world. It is certainly time to explore how CSR is being incorporated into the practice of business management in other regions and other countries. Therefore, in this chapter we will focus on Asia: specifically on Japan, South Korea, India, and China. It is interesting for academicians to understand how CSR is being absorbed and adapted into the business cultures of these four countries. Perhaps of even greater importance, it is vital that business managers know what to expect about the interaction between business and society as well as the government as their commercial activities grow in this burgeoning part of the world.
For each of these four countries, we will provide an overview of the extent to which CSR has become a part of the academic community and also how it is being practiced and incorporated in everyday management affairs. We will see that there are very significant differences among these countries which lead to the natural question: why? To answer this question, we will use an eight-part analytical framework developed specifically for this purpose. We will look at the history, the dominant religious beliefs, the relevant social customs, the geography, the political structures, the level of economic development, civil society institutions, and the “safety net” of each country. As a result of this analysis, we believe, academicians can learn how CSR is absorbed and spread into commercial affairs, and managers can profit from learning more about what to expect when doing business in this increasingly important region.
Issues concerning society are everybody's business. Therefore, individuals, larger or smaller groups, formal or informal entities, public or private firms, governmental or…
Issues concerning society are everybody's business. Therefore, individuals, larger or smaller groups, formal or informal entities, public or private firms, governmental or non-governmental organisations who are key stakeholders of society must always aspire to champion societal concerns. Society's welfare should be everybody's business. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a broad sense can be viewed as the relationship of organisations with society as a whole, and the need for organisations to align their values with societal expectations (Atuguba & Dowuona-Hammond, 2006). In reality, it is a set of standards by which organisations can impact their environment with the potential of creating sustainable development (Helg, 2007). It is critical that society educates everyone to be responsible. From all societal actors, universities are the ones educating the future elites of a country. What they teach and do not teach may make or break a nation's future and well-being. As noted by Dashwood and Puplampu (2010), there is a greater need for crafting a sustainable, strategic and mutually beneficial set of responsible actions in embracing the right approaches to CSR. According to them, such actions should emanate from a genuine recognition of, and attention to, economic, traditional, historical, as well as business arguments from the perspectives of the stakeholders and interest groups.
This chapter reviews some of the cohesive concepts raised in the recent literature regarding normative dialogues between business and society. The purpose is to draw a few…
This chapter reviews some of the cohesive concepts raised in the recent literature regarding normative dialogues between business and society. The purpose is to draw a few meaningful implications toward formulating new guiding philosophies for interaction between large global businesses and society in general. As these concepts tend to counterbalance the preponderance of the pure free market ideology and the traditional understanding of cultural segregation, the chapter's discussion thereof should help synthesize divergent arguments into a unified framework for business–society interface in this globalized environment.
Furnishes a narrative reflecting an in‐depth examination of managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Irish context. The narrative locates…
Furnishes a narrative reflecting an in‐depth examination of managerial conceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the Irish context. The narrative locates itself within the debate surrounding the extent to which corporate management may capture social accountants’ efforts to promote a broad society‐centred conception of CSR. Three key findings emerge from the narrative. First, there is evidence of a tendency for managers to interpret CSR in a constricted fashion consistent with corporate goals of shareholder wealth maximisation. Second, pockets of robust resistance to and defences of this narrow conception do, however, also emerge in the narrative. Third, the complexity of conceiving of a clear meaning for CSR, particularly for those exposed to the structural pressures encountered by these managers, is apparent. This is evident in the initial, somewhat contradictory, nature of many of the conceptions analysed. Reflects on these findings and considers their broad implications for social accountants’ attempts to promote greater society centred corporate accountability in Ireland.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: to determine the extent to which companies’™ efforts of sustainable business practices consider stakeholders within their…
The purpose of this paper is twofold: to determine the extent to which companies’™ efforts of sustainable business practices consider stakeholders within their organisations, business networks, the marketplace and society, and to develop and test a stakeholder construct in the context of companies’™ business sustainability efforts within their business networks, the marketplace and society by identifying underlying dimensions and items.
A mixed-method approach was used. First, qualitative research involving a case study approach was followed so as to describe how companies in different industries in Norway implement and manage sustainable business practices. This was followed by a quantitative research phase to empirically measure and test a stakeholder construct in the context of business sustainability efforts, which is reported here.
The results report both an initial factor solution as well as a refined factor solution. The factor analyses confirmed five stakeholder dimensions related to business sustainability in a cross-industry sample of organisations, their business networks, marketplace and society. These include: the focal company, downstream stakeholders, societal stakeholders, market stakeholders and upstream stakeholders. The results indicate satisfactory convergent, discriminant and nomological validity, as well as reliability of each dimension.
The study provides a stakeholder construct in the context of business sustainability efforts in focal companies and their business networks, the marketplace and society, based upon five common dimensions. The multi-dimensional framework may be used in both qualitative and quantitative research in future. It may also be used to assess stakeholders’™ business sustainability efforts.
The multi-dimensional framework is useful for practitioners to obtain an indication of stakeholders’™ business sustainability efforts in relation to focal companies and their business networks, the marketplace and society.
The study provides a general stakeholder construct in the context of business sustainability efforts in business networks, the marketplace and society. The proposed framework can be incorporated in further studies and could be used to assess the general status of stakeholders’™ sustainability efforts in their networks, the marketplace and society.