Search results

This paper aims to utilise a typological matrix as the basis to categorise various corporate‐society interventions. It aims to argue that an instrumental version of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is hegemonic in both the theoretical and normative domains of mainstream research, and that this hegemony underpins an intellectual blockage that prevents the field from achieving critical reflexivity and ultimately, a justifiable raison d'eˆtre.

The paper reflects on the extant CSR literature in the context of globalisation; presents a two‐dimensional typological matrix to be used in positioning corporate‐society interventions; provides examples of particular activities relevant to each quadrant of the matrix; and considers the wider political economy of CSR research.

The logical implications of the corporation as an institution behaving in increasing accordance with the normative expectations of mainstream CSR scholarship will likely lead in the direction of increasing corporate hegemony.

The paper proposes the adoption of the more theoretically coherent and empirically precise terms enlightened self‐interest and corporate social irresponsibility in CSR and related research streams, as well as the institutional relocation of much future CSR research to disciplinary areas outside of the business school.

The typological matrix presented in this paper offers a new way of locating corporate‐society interventions. The partial abandonment of the term “CSR” by researchers, as well as the institutional relocations of much CSR research, are original notions.

Based on critical theory and dialectical thought, discusses and outlines a framework for understanding corporate culture as corporate hegemony. First, offers the relevance of critical theory to the study of corporate culture as a managerial praxis and organizational discourse. Second, examines three aspects of the dialectics of corporate culture: the dialectical tensions between corporate and individual identity; the conflicting pressure for uniformity and diversity; and the dialectics of empowerment and disempowerment. Third, discusses the mechanisms for the hegemonic perpetuation of corporate culture by researchers and practitioners and for resisting a critical stance in the discourse of corporate culture. Fourth, and finally, the article examines possible ways for overcoming the problem of cultural hegemony in organization theory and praxis.

This paper aims to develop a framework of connotative meanings afforded to the term “corporate governance”.

An examination of academic publications from 1985-2012 containing the term “corporate governance” was conducted. The articles are sorted into the theoretical constructs that influence the contemporary connotative meaning of corporate governance.

That a combination of a weak definitional base coupled with strong motivational forces have aided the development of competing theoretical perspectives of the meaning of corporate governance. The dominant meaning is written from an agency theory perspective.

Theoretical analysis was restricted to articles found in academic journals published since 1985.

This study provides a very useful analysis into the connotative meanings and theoretical bases used by academic writers in the study of corporate governance.

This paper provides an updated and developed analysis to the theoretical dimensions that underpin the contemporary use of the term “corporate governance”.

This paper aims to conceptualize brand repulsion as a specific nuance of brand rejection, highlight the boundary work at play in situations of collective brand repulsion and extract implications for the brands that are at the centre of such situations and to delineate future directions for scholars.

The authors’ study of the “I Hate Apple” group on Facebook is grounded in a six-year long naturalistic enquiry designed to capture the boundary work performed by its members. The authors’ sources include netnographic data, online focus groups, observations and personal online correspondence with members and moderators.

This study’s findings reveal that certain brands serve the identity work of consumers by allowing them in erecting boundaries based on three major sources of repulsion: anti-fandom, anti-hegemony and anti-marketing. They show that for each type of boundary work, corporate and product brand repulsion seems prevalent.

This research limits itself to considering the types of boundary work related to brand repulsion as regards a single brand: Apple.

The study can help managers identify the types(s) of boundary work related to their brand and it provides practical recommendations for these various sources of brand repulsion. It also helps them distinguish between consumer brand repulsion directed against their product and their corporation.

This study advances knowledge in the field of brand rejection by exploring a specific nuance: brand repulsion. Its close examination of consumer collective practices offers a deeper understanding of the ins and outs of the paradoxical phenomenon of repulsion/attraction for a brand. The cultural lens is used as an original approach to this under-investigated nuance of brand rejection.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the fundamental premises (i.e. perspectives on organizations and intrinsic research contributions) embodied in the literature on organizational culture and offer insights into where organizational culture research should be headed now and going forward.

This research provides an integrative review of organizational culture research and investigates commonalities and differences in terms of the fundamental premises between North America and Europe.

The findings include that the modern perspective was most pervasive (87 percent) in both regions, with Europe slightly more open to varied perspectives such as symbolic and postmodern ones; approximately 70 percent of the studies were geared toward organization-level contributions, less than 10 percent toward individual-level contributions, and less than 20 percent toward mega-level contributions as the underlying research intent; and (c) in terms of the perspective-contribution combination, the pair of modern perspective and organization-level contribution was most dominant in both regions, while the individual-level contribution was paired with no other perspectives than the modern one.

This research suggests that the research community shape a whole new discourse on organizational culture and recommends several promising research avenues.

By engaging in fundamental discussions on how an organization has been perceived and what purpose it has meant to deliver, this research offers an overarching view of where we stand currently and possibly where we should be heading in terms of organizational change management.

This study aims to discover the role of accounting and media in hegemonic discourse for divestment valuation of PT Freeport Indonesia shares.

This study employs data from 608 news articles from 5 national media. This study uses Gramsci's concept of hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe's hegemonic discourse to explore the ideological role of accounting in the formation of historical blocs and investigate the contestants' discursive strategies through the chains of equivalence and difference.

The incumbent presidential candidate, by involving political and intellectual actors, has succeeded in taking over and shifting PT Freeport Indonesia's hegemony to maintain its power, through the ideology of divestment and accounting. The media played a role in the victory of the pro-divestment bloc in the hegemonic divestment discourse contest. The pro-divestment bloc's discursive strategy uses more formal and technical language styles than the anti-divestment bloc, which uses informal language styles. The pro-divestment bloc uses the key signifiers of low price, improved financial performance, nationalization and welfare, as opposed to the anti-divestment bloc, with the key signifiers of high price, declining financial performance and neoliberalist colonization.

The implications of this research may encourage accounting academics to contribute to emancipatory social movements in the struggle for hegemony. The implication for policy makers is the importance of involving the public, intellectual actors, political actors and the media in supporting diverse state strategic policies in the national interest.

This paper contributes to Gramsci's theory of hegemony and Laclau and Mouffe's hegemonic discourse to understand the role of accounting and media in a nationalization project as an emancipatory social movement, as well as a hegemonic shifting political movement.

We present a critical literature review debating Brazilian research on social and environmental accounting (SEA). The aim of this study is to understand the role of politics in the construction of hegemonies in SEA research in Brazil. In particular, we examine the role of hegemony in relation to the co-option of SEA literature and sustainability in the Brazilian context by the logic of development for economic growth in emerging economies. The methodological approach adopts a post-structural perspective that reflects Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory. The study employs a hermeneutical, rhetorical approach to understand and classify 352 Brazilian research articles on SEA. We employ Brown and Fraser’s (2006) categorizations of SEA literature to help in our analysis: the business case, the stakeholder–accountability approach, and the critical case. We argue that the business case is prominent in Brazilian studies. Second-stage analysis suggests that the major themes under discussion include measurement, consulting, and descriptive approach. We argue that these themes illustrate the degree of influence of the hegemonic politics relevant to emerging economics, as these themes predominantly concern economic growth and a capitalist context. This paper discusses trends and practices in the Brazilian literature on SEA and argues that the focus means that SEA avoids critical debates of the role of capitalist logics in an emerging economy concerning sustainability. We urge the Brazilian academy to understand the implications of its reifying agenda and engage, counter-hegemonically, in a social and political agenda beyond the hegemonic support of a particular set of capitalist interests.

Political Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), based on ideas about deliberative democracy, have been criticised for increasing corporate power and democratic deficits. Yet, deliberative ideals are flourishing in the corporate world in the form of dialogues with a broad set of stakeholders and engagement in wider societal issues. Extractive industry areas, with extensive corporate interventions in weak regulatory environments, are particularly vulnerable to asymmetrical power relations when businesses engage with society. This paper aims to illustrate in what way deliberative CSR practices in such contexts risk enhancing corporate power at the expense of community interests.

This paper is based on a retrospective qualitative study of a Canadian oil company, operating in an Albanian oilfield between 2009 and 2016. Through a study of three different deliberative CSR practices – market-based land acquisition, a grievance redress mechanism and dialogue groups – it highlights how these practices in various ways enforced corporate interests and prevented further community mobilisation.

By applying Laclau and Mouffe’s theory of hegemony, the analysis highlights how deliberative CSR activities isolated and silenced community demands, moved some community members into the corporate alliance and prevented alternative visions of the area to be articulated. In particular, the close connection between deliberative practices and monetary compensation flows is underlined in this dynamic.

The paper contributes to critical scholarship on political CSR by highlighting in what way deliberative practices, linked to monetary compensation schemes, enforce corporate hegemony by moving community members over to the corporate alliance.

This paper aims to propose, discuss and evaluate a four‐stage model of storyselling and its accompanying power dynamics, which are at the heart of coaching in organisations.

This paper is informed by a social constructionist view of coaching.

The conceptualisation of the coaching process as a series of storyselling activities highlights the power of storytelling to facilitate management development through coaching on the one hand and the potential for manipulation and abuse on the other.

The application of storytelling in organisational coaching as well as the darker and manipulative side of storyselling in the coaching process and relationships should inform future research into these important phenomena.

An analysis of the complex nature of the dynamics of coaching and the multi‐layered nature of the relationship between coach, organisation and coachee will be of benefit to practising coaches, purchasers and recipients of coaching as well as researchers interested in coaching.

The value of this paper lies in the exploration of the relatively new concept of storyselling and accompanying power dynamics in an organisational coaching context.

The paper aims to use a neoliberal ideology to frame an analysis of how the power of ideas can be used to maintain a failed corporate governance model based on stockholder primacy.

The paper employs the concept of corporate hegemony to provide an understanding of the conditioning environment in the USA in the 1990s. It examines the tactics that neoliberals used to gain consensus for their ideology and to skillfully deflect criticism in the face of significant policy failures that have had a global impact.

The paper highlights the power of ideology to create a desired outcome. It finds that Sarbanes‐Oxley represented a neoliberal victory in that it legitimated shareholder primacy and continued use of a failed corporate governance model.

Sarbanes‐Oxley did not address the systemic problems associated with deregulation; it will not resolve the basic problem of how to prevent corporate malfeasance in an economic environment that rewards arbitrage capitalism, high risk and a focus on short‐term profits.

If shareholder primacy weakens accountability, as the paper suggests, then accounting researchers need to develop models that focus on deregulation rather than on regulatory capture and the use of state power to promote private interests. Accounting academics need to assume the role of public intellectuals and to reject Milton Friedman's focus on negative freedom as the sole objective of economic activity and examine economic well being in terms of positive freedom.