Search results

Environmental uncertainty, turbulence, and heterogeneity create a host of strategic and operational challenges for today’s organizations (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998). To cope with the challenge of simultaneously developing and nurturing both today’s and tomorrow’s core competencies, firms increasingly rely on effective use of corporate entrepreneurship (Covin & Miles, 1999). These facts make it imperative that managers at all levels actively participate in designing and implementing a strategy for corporate entrepreneurship actions. The recent literature reveals that there is a general although certainly not a complete consensus around the position that successful corporate entrepreneurship (CE) is linked to improvement in firm performance (Ireland et al., 2001). Covin, Ireland and Kuratko (2003) suggest that corporate entrepreneurship is increasingly recognized as a legitimate path to high levels of organizational performance and that the understanding of corporate entrepreneurship as a valid and effective practice with real, tangible benefits is occurring across firm type and managerial levels. Other researchers cite corporate entrepreneurship’s importance as a growth strategy (Kuratko, 1993; Kuratko et al., 1993; Merrifield, 1993; Pinchott, 1985; Zahra, 1991; Zahra & Covin, 1995; Zahra, Kuratko & Jennings, 1999). As an example, Dess, Lumpkin and McGee (1999) note that, “Virtually all organizations – new start-ups, major corporations, and alliances among global partners – are striving to exploit product-market opportunities through innovative and proactive behavior” – the type of behavior that is called for by corporate entrepreneurship. Barringer and Bluedorn (1999) suggested that in light of the dynamism and complexity of today’s environments, “…entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviors are necessary for firms of all sizes to prosper and flourish.” Developing an internal environment that cultivates employees’ interest in and commitment to creativity and the innovation that can result from it contributes to successful competition in today’s competitive arenas. A valuable and appropriate internal organizational environment is a product of effective work (often within the context of corporate entrepreneurship) by managers at all levels (Floyd & Lane, 2000).

This chapter highlights the roots of corporate philanthropy from Frishkoff and Kostecka's (1991) concern for community, Young and Burlingame's (1996) Paradigm Lost, Saiia's (2001) strategic philanthropy, and Bruch and Walter's (2005) Four Types of Corporate Philanthropy.

Ethical corporate citizenship and good corporate governance have received increased attention since the financial scandals prevalent at the beginning of the new millennium. This study first explores the relationship of ethical corporate citizenship to financial performance (i.e., greater profitability and efficiency, and lower cost of capital). Second, the study examines whether ethical corporate behavior is associated with a market-value premium. Results of prior studies are mixed. The results of our study contribute directly to the recent accounting literature in which specific aspects of ethical corporate behavior have been explored (Fukami et al. 1997; Ittner and Larker, 1998; Ballou et al., 2003; Clarkson et al., 2004). We use firms listed by Business Ethics as “The 100 Best Corporate Citizens” as our sample of ethical firms. The univariate results of our study indicate a significant relationship between ethical corporate behavior and financial performance (i.e., greater profitability and efficiency, and lower cost of capital). The results of multivariate tests, controlling for prior year market value of equity, yield results that indicate a marginally significant association between being recognized as ethical in that year and market value of equity, but no association between being recognized as ethical at least one time and market value of equity. Nevertheless, given our study's findings of better financial performance and lower risk, we conclude that ethical corporate citizenship does indeed benefit a firm.

This study contributes to the existing literature that corporate governance consist of internal and external governance behavior which refers to the complementarity of the elements of (1) competing values framework and (2) corporate legality framework theories and proper orientation in the provisions of the elements leads to a good corporate power in the modern legal environment. A questionnaire is designed, a survey is conducted based on the constructed corporate governance model in the study, which investigates the evolutionary background of the elements with the view of establishing the right corporate culture and corporate legality behavior. The empirical results revealed that there is a positive linear relationship between the elements of corporate culture provisions with internal governance behavior and a significant positive association between the elements of corporate legality provisions with external governance behavior. The model does not take into account long-term external factors. Therefore, measuring corporate governance may not be an easy task and may not be suitable for specific countries that have strong legal systems and corporate ownership. The elements in the model are practical to implement and facilitates corporate to improve shareholder involvement and governance reporting and hence prevent failure. The constructed model span almost every attribute embedding high quality corporate social responsibility and corporate governance for corporate to identify areas for improvement and contributes to existing corporate governance literature that, connecting corporate culture and corporate legality behavior positively affect financial markets and firm performance.

Considering a macro view of business and higher education interactions, this chapter explores key facets for business interest in other organizations (e.g., other businesses and their social agendas, nonprofits, and higher education) and a trend toward the creation of signature programs, which allow most companies to focus efforts by highlighting Carroll's (1991) Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility and Jacoby's (1973) Three Models of Behavior of the Business Enterprise. This chapter also addresses ethical opportunities and problems.

Corporate social responsibility describes the role that society expects of business organizations. Because it is difficult to see societal norms in one's own society, comparative law can help us increase the salience of those norms in our own community. Looking at how a set of business laws uniform across 16 West and Central African countries lives in one of the member states, Cameroon, we see that society expresses its norms not only when behavior tracks the positive law, but also, and very importantly, when it diverges from that law. After studying examples of divergence in the South, specifically in the African country Cameroon, the chapter turns to the North. Using the United States as the illustration, and focusing on the role of business entities, the chapter identifies ways of opening the discussion among all political constituents, even those outside the traditional business community.

The incentives for organizations to practice good corporate citizenship include social expectations and pressures, the ingrained values of corporate leaders, and citizenship's contributions to business performance. In addition, healthcare organizations have a unique citizenship incentive because of the relationship between practicing corporate citizenship and achieving the core, health-enhancing purposes of these organizations. A template of six organization behaviors that have been empirically determined to be widely used citizenship-related behaviors is described, along with how a large healthcare organization exhibits these behaviors. A three-step process is described through which healthcare organizations can build competence in corporate citizenship by (1) incorporating citizenship commitments into their missions and giving citizenship a high priority; (2) organizing to build competence in corporate citizenship, and to facilitate and sustain citizenship performance; and (3) maintaining commitment to citizenship competence and increasing citizenship performance by conducting periodic citizenship audits, and acting on the results.

The chapter aims to clarify the relationship between corporate governance structure and corporate subscription to Global Compact standards. Part one of the chapter looks at the relationship between different models of board governance and active Global Compact participation by publicly listed companies. Part two of the chapter examines a number of external mechanisms aimed at bringing corporate behavior in line with Global Compact principles, and argues that there is a mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external provisions aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

Part one of the chapter uses an independent T-test to compare the average (mean) proportion of publicly listed companies from unitary board countries with an active Global Compact Communication on Progress status with the average proportion of publicly listed companies from two-tier/hybrid corporate governance systems listed as active Global Compact participants. Part two of the chapter uses primary and secondary sources to examine external mechanisms operating across national borders aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

The chapter finds that a higher proportion of public companies from countries with two-tier/hybrid corporate governance structures have become active Global Compact participants compared to public companies from legal systems with unitary board corporate governance structures. Part two of the chapter examines the potentially mutually reinforcing relationship between internal governance structures and external mechanisms for modifying corporate behavior.

While external codes and standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises appear to be influencing corporate behavior worldwide, quantitative data confirming and recording the extent and nature of this influence (if any) remains limited.

The chapter provides useful insights for policy makers and corporate leaders into the relationship between internal corporate governance structures and external codes, standards and guidelines aimed at influencing corporate behavior.

This chapter provides original insights into whether and how internal governance structures can complement and reinforce social standards regarding global corporate citizenship, and the legal guidelines reflecting those standards.