Search results

This paper develops a framework for understanding history as a source of competitive advantage. Prior research suggests that some firms enjoy preferential access to resources as a result of their past. Historians, by contrast, understand past events as more than an objective account of reality. History also has an interpretive function. History is a social and rhetorical construction that can be shaped and manipulated to motivate, persuade, and frame action, both within and outside an organization. Viewed as a malleable construct, the capacity to manage history can, itself, be a rare and inimitable resource.

When first asked to write a chapter on “Corporate Networks,” I was flummoxed by the Stanford focus. Unlike many of the other theories in this volume, where a game of word association by theory results in a roster of current or emeritus Stanford faculty members, corporate network has roots in many institutions. Indeed, institutions such as University of Chicago or Stonybrook may make a claim for being at the forefront of research on corporate networks, and University of Michigan is the current home to three of the top researchers in the area. Yet, among the core network researchers, a good number of them either spent their early faculty years at Stanford (e.g., Pam Haunschild, Don Palmer, Joel Podolny) or completed doctoral training at Stanford (e.g., Jerry Davis, Henrich Greve, Toby Stuart, Christine Beckman). And this list does not include those that came to Stanford later in their careers (e.g., Mark Granovetter and Woody Powell). Furthermore, the history of corporate network research is intertwined with many of the theories developed at Stanford during the late 1970s. To understand this influence, I begin with a brief but broad history of research on corporate networks, a history that begins somewhat earlier than 1970 and continues to the present. Then I turn to the question of Stanford's role in supporting this research stream and intellectual life more broadly.

This chapter squarely attributes DEI responsibility to powerful corporations that have historically benefitted from a history of discrimination against people of color and recommends a path forward that embraces DEI-PR-CSR intersections by placing DEI within a CSR office rather than in HR.

The author focusses on corporate history from a media aesthetic perspective using the case of the Danish brewer Carlsberg. Through a careful examination of the company’s website that draws on Kress and Van Leeuwen’s work on modality, the author examines how images and symbols of the past and present are intertwined so as to ‘curate’ history and present the brand as both deeply rooted and authentic.

Business corporations (and unincorporated joint-stock companies) formed in Britain and the United States in the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century were lightly regulated by today’s standards and, as startups, sold equity directly to investors without the aid of intermediaries, yet they suffered relatively few governance breakdowns. That is because republican government-style checks against the arbitrary power of any group of stakeholders (managers, blockholders, directors) suffused their founding documents (charters/constitutions, articles of agreement, bylaws), raising the expected costs of defalcation above the expected benefits. Over the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, the original checks disintegrated. They were functionally replaced twice, first by financial capitalism a la J. P. Morgan, then by corporate raiders and takeover specialists like KKR, but politicians neutralized the first and managers (and judges) the second, leaving many widely held corporations today under the control of CEOs/Board Chairmen who can self-deal with near impunity and have apparent incentives to do so. A return to the precepts of the republican model could help to improve governance outcomes in the future.

In 1971 the second volume of Advances in Librarianship contained a chapter titled “Oral History: Problems and Prospects.” Written by Louis Starr, then director of the oral history program at Columbia University, it offered a wide-ranging assessment of a field of work that was just beginning to coalesce. The first national colloquium on oral history had been held only 5 years earlier, in 1966, and the term oral history had not achieved the popular distinction it enjoys today.

Companies face a wide number of risks and need to have in place appropriate measures and techniques to be able to identify, manage, and monitor risks. Risk management is a fundamental responsibility of the corporate governance structure of an organization; it means managing all risks on a holistic basis, all together rather than just one, through an appropriate and systematic process. This chapter provides an overview of enterprise risk management in the United Kingdom. It presents key information on the economic system of the United Kingdom, emphasizing the role of small and medium enterprises, and presents country macroeconomic highlights. It provides a summary of regulation, practices, and authorities; it presents the key milestones of the regulation on corporate governance and reporting in the United Kingdom, and stresses the importance of corporate governance mechanism in companies' enterprise risk management practices. Further, it discusses the importance of transparency and disclosure in the context of enterprise risk management, specifically the relevance of risk management and internal control related disclosure in the annual reports and accounts. Finally, it reviews the growing academic research on enterprise risk management and previous studies on risk disclosure practices in companies' reports.

Purpose – As corporations and capital markets become more global, it is increasingly important to understand the differences in corporate governance practices.

Approach – This chapter provides a framework for the implementation of corporate governance that can be used globally for study and adaptation. It also describes three corporate governance systems (Anglo-American, Communitarian, and Emerging Markets) and provides an analysis and comparison of how the framework for corporate governance is applied differently, and how success should be evaluated differently, in these three systems. Lastly, it considers the possibility of convergence toward a global system of corporate governance.

Practical implications – There is significant heterogeneity in corporate governance worldwide but there are universal aspects, such as roles, responsibilities, inputs, and processes, which result in effective corporate governance. Understanding the similarities and differences enables researchers and managers to work with multiple systems in different countries where corporations and stakeholders have varying objectives, structures, and internal and external determinants.

Value of chapter – This chapter presents a comparison of the three systems that is critical for further study of global practices. Additionally, the internal and external determinants that impact the varying corporate governance systems are analyzed to more carefully consider the performance measures that account for differences in objectives, motivations, and performance.

This chapter presents William (Bill) H. Carris's distinctive organizational design for a positive and practical model of 100% employee-governance in the movement toward 100% employee-ownership of the Carris Companies, a manufacturer of wood, plastic, and metal reels in six United States locations and one in Mexico. The positive approach in the redesigning of the Carris Companies’ corporate governance was distinguished by the commitment to teach employees the business, the one-person, one-vote provision, the discounted sale price, and a transparent accountable model for decision-making. Multiple theories of corporate governance and organizational design are applied within this case. The analysis suggests that the Carris Companies’ commitment to its positive design facilitated its adherence to its long-term vision of shared ownership and governance, independent of upturns or downturns in the industry and economy. Further, not only were these fundamental to organizational success, the efforts by the Carris Companies contribute to the growing fields of positive design and positive organizational scholarship.