Search results

The United Nations Global Compact initiative is presented for businesses and nonbusiness as a universally accepted set of principles. The aim of the 10 principles in the areas of Human Rights, Labor, Environment, and Anticorruption is to encourage businesses to align their operations and strategies with committed values. The Global Compact network involves not only companies but also governments, labor, and civil society organizations. Corporations, community, and environment are integral parts of a system that correlate to each other. In light of the assumption that business operations have increasingly observable effects on the environment, economy, and social life on a global scale, it is necessary to have accountable and sustainable firms. The Global Compact is a voluntary strategic policy initiative, and it has become more important in where interactions between organizations and stakeholders to be more dynamic. On the other hand, sustainability has economic, social, and environmental dimensions, and in accordance with these dimensions, it is necessary for firms to take into account the influence of their operations on their stakeholders. Thereby, from theoretical perspectives, the primary objective of this chapter is to illustrate the role of Global Compact in corporate accountability and sustainability.

An extensive literature research is conducted in order to understand the relationship between Global Compact principles and corporate accountability and sustainability.

From a theoretical point of view, there are some conditions for the advancement of the corporate accountability and sustainability. For instance, there is need for stakeholders’ insistence about incorporating social and environmental values into the business economic decisions. Thus firms could contribute to not only worlds’ economic but also social as well as environmental future.

The research is a theoretical study, but for further studies, empirical studies can be conducted to understand the interactions between Global Compact principles and corporate accountability and sustainability.

This study may be useful for managers to realize the role of Global Compact principles on corporate accountability and its contribution to being a sustainable firm.

There is a lack of studies that analyze the role of Global Compact principles on corporate accountability and sustainability. Examining the principles in light of corporate accountability and sustainability will add a value to the literature in this area.

Socially responsible investment (SRI) engagement currently performs a variety of supportive regulatory functions such as reframing norms, establishing dialogue and providing resources to improve performance, however corporate responses are voluntary. This chapter will examine the potential gains in effectiveness for SRI engagement in a responsive regulatory regime.

Global warming is a pressing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issue. By using the example of climate change the effectiveness of SRI engagement actors and the regulatory context can be considered. This chapter builds the conceptual framework for responsive regulation of climate change.

SRI engagement may face resistance from corporations due to its voluntary nature and conflict with other goals. Legitimacy and accountability limit the effectiveness of SRI engagement functioning as a voluntary regulatory mechanism. This chapter argues that the effectiveness of SRI engagement on climate change could be enhanced if it served as part of a responsive regulation regime.

Engagement is used by SRIs for ESG issues. A comprehensive regulatory regime could enhance corporate adaptation to climate change through increasing compliance with SRI engagement. The implication for SRI practitioners is that lobbying for a supportive regulatory regime has a large potential benefit.

Responsive regulatory policy involves both support and sanctions to improve compliance, enhancing policy efficiency and effectiveness. There are potentially large net social benefits from utilising SRI engagement in a regulatory regime.

In seeking to re-articulate voluntary and legal approaches this research addresses a gap in the literature on climate change regulation.

Purpose – The objective of this paper is to examine how state-owned entities (SOEs) engage with the requirements of the corporate governance code in an African developing economy (Mauritius).

Approach – A content analysis of the annual reports of SOEs and National Audit Office (NAO) reports is undertaken. This is supplemented by semi-structured interviews with relevant directors and regulatory bodies.

Findings – We report a substantial non-implementation of the code and identify several impediments to the transposing of the corporate governance model to the state-owned entities. The salient issues relate to the inadequate definition of SOEs in the code, the different conceptualisations of ownership and accountability, the influence of political rivalries and the low level of financial accountability in SOEs. We also consider our findings in relation to the theoretical perspectives of ‘efficiency gains’ and ‘social legitimation’.

Originality/value – Very few studies have looked into the applicability of codes of corporate governance in SOEs. In spite of the prominence of SOEs in many African developing countries, empirical evidence on corporate governance implementation in such entities has been scant.

Recommendations/implications – The findings are of relevance to policy-makers and regulators who seek to rely on mainstream corporate governance principles and practices to enhance the accountability and transparency of SOEs. Key enabling conditions for corporate governance implementation involve a depoliticisation of board appointments and a redefinition of the accountability relationships between SOEs and their ultimate owner (i.e. elected representatives and taxpayers).

The lexicon of corporate governance has ‘transparency’ as a key imperative. Yet transparency as a management principle begs explanation. It also raises several questions: transparent to whom, how and why? Who decides? Is full transparency desirable? What are its merits and benefits? What are the risks of increased transparency? The answers may lie somewhere between the shareholder and stakeholder views of the modern corporation, with the former defending shareholder-owner primacy and firm profit-maximisation, and the latter offering a values-based approach towards balancing the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. While corporate governance broadly addresses the needs of shareholders and investors, driven by the position that companies need to be better governed for stockholder value, the ‘stakeholder’ view of the corporation has gained ground over the past 20 or so years whereby the modern corporation is accountable not only to its owners, but also society.The transparency debate has emerged in parallel, and with it, issues of privacy and/or secrecy on one hand and the notion of ‘sunlight’ on the other. Transparency’s role has been variously described as the promotion of corporate disclosure and protection of the rights of minority shareholders in the information environment (Bushman & Smith, 2003); the promotion of corporate accountability and advancement of the rights of stakeholders (Clarke, 2004; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hess, 2007; Mallin, 2002); a tool to limit information asymmetries (Boatright, 2008; Florini, 2007a, 2007b; Hood, 2006; Lev, 1992); a means to create a level playing field through ethics and fairness (Boatright, 2008; Oliver, 2004); the promotion of market efficiency (Bessire, 2005; Heflin, Subramanyam, & Zhang, 2003); and the prevention of abuse through stakeholder activism (Bandsuch, Pate, & Thies, 2008; Roche, 2005). Aspirations aside, there is lack of consensus as to transparency's dimensions, drivers and dilemmas in corporate behaviour. Indeed, its perceived value to stakeholders and corporations alike remains questionable. In this chapter, the author discusses the governance of corporate transparency and argues that clarity and Board policy are needed to manage transparency activism and its resultant risks.

The authors examine the role of national corporate governance characteristics on both the number of deals and the total value of acquisitions in 28 European countries between 2008 and 2015. In line with previous studies, our analysis suggests that deal value and number of acquisitions follow a cyclical trend but each with different peaks and troughs throughout the sample period. Likewise, we observe a positive relationship between the level of GDP and the number as well as the total value of acquisitions. Among the three types of corporate governance institutions, namely corporate ethics, accountability, and financial market development (efficiency), the authors find that efficiency and a relatively higher level of corporate ethics within the target country in comparison to the acquirer country are positively related to the value of acquisitions.

Accountability is ubiquitous in social systems, and its necessity is magnified in formal organizations, whose purpose has been argued to predict and control behavior. The very notion of organizing necessitates answering to others, and this feature implies an interface of work and social enterprises, the individuals comprising them, and subunits from dyads to divisions. Because the nature of workplace accountability is multi-level as well as interactive, single-level conceptualizations of the phenomenon are incomplete and inherently misleading. In response, this chapter sets forth a meso-level conceptualization of accountability, which develops a more comprehensive understanding of this pervasive and imperative phenomenon. The meso model presented integrates contemporary theory and research, and extends our perspectives beyond individual, group, unit, or organizational perspectives toward a unitary whole. Following this is a description of challenges and opportunities facing scholars conducting accountability research (e.g., data collection and analysis and non-traditional conceptualizations of workplace phenomenon). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed, as are directions for future research.

Since its inception, the term ‘corporate governance’ (CG) has attracted mainstream attention, continuing to generate discussion among academics, practitioners and policy-makers. This heightened interest generally revolves around clarifying the principles of CG, both in theory and practice. This is particularly important in the context of emerging economies, where the sociocultural ethos and values often differ from those of most developed economies, where the CG concept was conceived and developed. In this vein, this chapter draws on empirical data to explore practical CG challenges faced by corporations in the Nigerian manufacturing and banking sectors. Nigeria is a country whose dominant national culture is one of high-power distance (HPD), which endorses servant-master relationships and encourages deference to authority. In this study, we found that HPD culture can undermine stakeholders’ ability to hold corporate executives to account on practices and behaviours that are antithetical to principles of corporate integrity and ethics, accountability, transparency, autonomy and stakeholder engagement, which in turn, leads to (and exacerbates) corporate misgovernance among businesses in the sectors. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are expatiated in the discussion section.

This paper provides a review of the progress made in both academic literature and corporate practice over the last forty years. Although there has been an increase in the number of companies producing social and environmental reports, the quality of the disclosures has not increased. Further, there is little evidence of progress in the integration of social and environmental impacts into management decisions. The paper provides suggestions on research needs to increase the integration of social and environmental impacts into management decisions and improve both the internal reporting and external disclosures and accountability of corporations.

In decades since the Rio Summit, freshwater has become an increasingly prominent issue in the global arena and attention has turned to the role of the corporate sector. Various (predominantly voluntary) corporate water accounting standards currently exist, from water-related components in wide-ranging sustainability standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative through to standards specifically focused on water and/or a particular industry. While academic research on adoption of these standards is sparse, initial findings reveal generally poor water reporting in terms of both quality and quantity. In future, the major areas where reporting (and standards) could be improved are the provision of site-level water information and the assessment of water risk throughout the supply chain.