Search results

In the wake of the extraordinary financial scandals that both preceded and followed the September–October Financial Crises of 2008, discussions about the executive virtues of honesty and integrity are no longer academic or esoteric, but critically urgent and challenging. As representatives of the corporation, its products and services, corporate executives in general, and production, accounting, finance, and marketing executives in particular, must be the frontline public relations and goodwill ambassadors for their firms, products, and services. As academicians of business education, we must also analyze these corporate wrongdoings as objectively and ethically as possible. What is wrong must be declared and condemned as wrong, what is right must be affirmed and acknowledged as right. We owe it to our students, our profession, our stakeholders, and to the business world. Contemporary American philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (1981) proposes the issue of morality in a threefold question: Who am I? Who ought I to become? How ought I to get there? The answer to every question refers to the virtues, especially to corporate executive virtues. This chapter explores corporate executive virtues, especially the classical cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice as defining and enhancing corporate executive life.

By contributing to the burgeoning debate regarding “for what” nonprofit organizations should be accountable, this article aims to develop and present an Integrated Accountability Model (IAM) that considers three dimensions of accountability.

After highlighting the limits of conventional accounting for NPOs and reframing the role of profit within them, the article presents a complete literature review on “to whom” and “for what” NPOs have to be accountable while further developing the IAM of integrated accountability.

The integrated accountability model developed in this article proposes three categories of NPO accountability: (i) the economic and financial dimension or the capability/ability to be economically sustainable in the long term; (ii) the mission-related dimension or the raison d’être of an NPO, that is, the purpose for which the NPO has been set up, its mission; and (iii) the social-related dimension or the relationship with the stakeholders, that is the impact of NPO activities on its stakeholders in terms of the social contract between them.

Broadly, this article makes a contribution to the literature on accountability for NPOs. In particular it sheds light on two points: the importance of separating the mission-related dimension from the social-related one and the potential to open avenues for expansion of the IAM model to for-profit organizations.

This chapter seeks to contribute to a better understanding of Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs) use of practices for the purpose of organizational sustainability by highlighting the need for conducive performance measures and standards attached to NPO funding sources.

A review of literature for the UK Non-profit organization sector and NPO performance measures. The review structures literature as it relates to the non-profit sector and their relation to societal impact of human social service (HSS) non-profit organizations, non-profit performance measures, and processes of knowledge sharing in application of organizational evaluation.

This chapter provides a review of gaps in the literature referring suitable performance measurement and assessments suitable for the unique culture and approaches to performance measures of non-profit organizations. Future research implications suggest research in order to comprehend processes and procedures of performance measures inclusive of knowledge sharing and the processes of how non-profit learn, share, and evaluate internal and external to the NPO sector.

The value of this chapter is relevant for the public, government, and corporations to support efficient and effective ways in appropriating funds and defining successful NPO’s for external funders to invest.

This chapter reviews research on the question–behavior effect, the phenomenon that asking questions influences respondents’ behavior. Two distinct research streams, the self-prophecy effect, concerned with socially normative behaviors, and the mere measurement effect, dealing with purchase behaviors without socially normative significance, are identified. Despite the recent attempt at integration, it is argued that there are fundamental differences between the two effects. Distinctions are also drawn between lab-based and field-based mere measurement effects, and between normatively consistent and implicit attitude-driven, normatively inconsistent self-prophecy effects. Key studies, theoretical explanations, and moderators of each effect are discussed, potential unanswered questions and research opportunities are identified, and significant managerial and policy implications are highlighted.

We focus on the internal workings of a university organization’s response to institutional plurality. In the field of higher education, both organizations and individuals are prescribed competing demands due to academic logic and the logic of managerialism. We interpret six individual experiences of institutional plurality and illuminate how social position, disposition, emotions, and apprehension regarding plurality affect their response to shifting emphases in the logics of the university. In addition, we show that although there may appear to be harmony in the organizational-level response to institutional plurality, turmoil may be affecting the organization’s members, highlighting the importance of looking at how people experience institutional logic multiplicity.

We argue that the stakeholder and CSR literature can benefit from more systematic thinking about ownership. We discuss general notions of ownership in the economics and legal literature and the entrepreneurial notion of ownership we have developed in prior work. On this basis, we argue that stakeholder theory needs to deal more systematically with ownership as an economic function that can be exercised with greater or lesser ability, may be complementary to other economic functions, and works better when assigned to homogeneous groups. Some stakeholder groups are likely to lack what we call “ownership competence,” even if they have made relationship-specific investments, in part because of a diversity of interests. We also discuss CSR from the perspective of ownership and support Friedman’s original position, but with a twist. The point of Friedman’s paper is not that firms “should” maximize profits, but that managerial pursuit of “socially responsible” activities in a discretionary way imposes costs on owners. We suggest this problem is exacerbated with entrepreneurial managers who can devise new ways to prop up their self-interested actions with new creative CSR initiatives.

This chapter acknowledges the difficulties in the empirical study of social ventures – broadly defined as market-driven ventures that produce social change – that arise from the vast differences among social venture firms in terms of missions, goals, identities, strategies, and structures. In an effort to improve research in this area and advance the field of social entrepreneurship, the authors advocate approaching social ventures from a configurational perspective.

This chapter begins with a discussion of what social ventures are and why organizational configurations – sets of firms that are similar across key characteristics – may be an appropriate perspective to utilize. Then, two methods – cluster analysis and set-theoretic analysis – are discussed in detail as ways to approach the study of social venture configurations. Details include descriptions of the techniques, instructions for use, examples, and limitations for each.

This chapter identifies research opportunities using configurations approaches in social venture research. Substantial possibilities for multilevel and temporally based research are discussed in depth.

A configurational approach can address the incongruence and non-findings in current social venture research and offers new opportunities for future research.

Although the concept of social capital is rightly associated with Putnam (2000), arguably its roots lie further back in the nineteenth century, but were first articulated in a “contemporary sense” in 1916 (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2001, p. 41). The authors begin their analysis by summarizing the main types of capital: economic, social, political, human, cultural and symbolic, before exploring the different types of social capital, including bonding, bridging and linking. These are then linked to a variety of related concepts, including: social enterprise, social networks, social value, community development, community resilience and sociability (Cook, Halsall, & Wankhade, 2015). It is argued that social capital is central to these, and is of increasing importance across the globe within the context of the threats and opportunities posed by globalization on the one hand (including the spread of COVID-19) and of potential deglobalization on the other, in part as a reaction to COVID-19 and pre-existing nationalist trends toward limitation of global interactions. The discussion is supported by examination of a range of case studies drawn from societies of contrasting types, including the UK, USA, China, Bangladesh and South Africa. The authors conclude their analysis via consideration of how social capital can be expanded further in order to help meet contemporary and future challenges from whichever direction it arises.