Search results

In the “shareholder primacy” (SP) view of the modern corporation, shareholders are endowed with ownership rights over the corporation. This view stems from the property rights and agency theories of the business firm formulated by financial and business economists in the 1970s and 1980s, which subsequently fed into US corporate law debates. It relies on positive legal assumptions that have largely been debunked by legal scholars, and on normative economic ideas that are equally problematic. However, SP is still very influential – if not the dominant paradigm of corporate governance, especially in the United States. The goal of the present study is to come back to the theoretical debates around the foundations of the SP paradigm to seek to identify key ideational properties that may explain, in part, the resilience of such paradigm in policy, scholarship and business practice. In particular, this paper proposes that one important reason for the persistence of the SP ideology lies in the latter’s foundation on the radically contingent nature of shareholders’ claims over the corporation.

A large and growing literature examines the explicit social responsibility practices of companies. Yet corporations’ greatest consequences for social welfare arguably occur through indirect processes that shape the social fabric that sustains generosity and mutual support within communities. Based on this logic, we theorize and test a model that suggests two pathways by which large corporations affect community philanthropy: (1) through direct engagement in community philanthropy and (2) by indirectly influencing the efficacy of community social capital, defined as the relationships among community members that facilitate social support and maintenance of social welfare. Our analysis of United Way contributions in 136 US cities over the 46 years from 1952 to 1997 supports our model. We find that the presence of corporations weakens the contributions of both elite and working-class social capital on community philanthropy. Our findings thus contribute to a novel view of corporate social responsibility based on how corporations influence the social capital of the communities in which they are embedded.

We argue for major re-orientation when applying a neo-institutional perspective within the domain of international business (IB), and in research on the multinational corporation (MNC), in particular. On the one hand, we suggest re-conceptualizing MNCs as globally oriented organizations that nonetheless remain firmly anchored in local cultural settings. On the other hand, it seems crucial for institutionalist IB literature to engage more thoroughly with the core underlying assumptions, theoretical constructs, and recent extensions of neo-institutional theory. We present an overview and systematic evaluation of the current state of institutional approaches toward the MNC, and contrast it with research foci that will emerge from a phenomenological-institutional analysis.

Even though there is neither case law nor policy negating the concept of the maximisation of shareholders' profits, the ‘schizophrenia’ of the legal conception of the corporation (Allen 1992), and the incertitude that stems from this, justify a new definition of the ‘best interests of the corporation’. Doubt is accentuated by the statutes of American companies, called non-shareholder constituency statutes, which refer to ‘best interests’ in the assessment of corporation director duties. Indeed, nearly half of U.S. states have adopted ‘constituency statutes’ which allow the board of directors to take into account the interests of non-shareholders when making decisions (Mitchell, 1992; Orts, 1992).⁷

Purpose – To examine corporate social responsibility in cyberspace within the context of the experience of Google Corporation in China in order to provide greater understanding of the complexities that corporations encounter when operating across cyber borders.Design/methodology/approach – The research is grounded in the theoretical debate: The Internet as democratic and universal space versus the Internet as autocratic and sovereign space. Historical analysis is drawn from the case of Google Corporation in China.Findings – Freedom in cyberspace is more likely to be advanced universally with a collective commitment to corporate social responsibility in the information technology sector.Research limitations/implications – The study provides insights into the appropriate balance between the ethical responsibilities of the firm and its need to compete and survive in the highly competitive information age.Originality/value of chapter – The case of Google Corporation in China offers a venue for further discussion on the ethical role of transnational information technology corporations and their improvements in fostering human rights and free enterprise in cyberspace.

The prime goal of this chapter is to discuss what the notion of rhetorical citizenship as a normative aspiration might entail for corporations.

The chapter draws on a pilot study of the Facebook pages of two banks. A rhetorical criticism of these pages was conducted.

We suggest that while corporations are assuredly entities very different from the individual citizens who hold civil, social, and political rights – which do not directly apply to corporations – rhetorical citizenship is nevertheless a suggestive and constructive metaphor for corporations to communicate by.

Rhetorical citizenship for corporations must, we argue, be(come) rooted in organizational reality, and should involve a continued critical questioning as to what might constitute citizenly communication for corporations under any given circumstances. The chapter is, however, built on limited data from a pilot study and needs to be complemented.

We suggest from our pilot study that the active engagement of corporations in social media may currently be seen as one form of rhetorical citizenship that the public expects corporations to enact. Thus, we argue, corporations in general might as well attempt to do their best to act as rhetorical citizens.

The chapter highlights how communication is a set of practices in which social responsibility must be enacted. We find that this is not a prevalent perspective in the existing literature on CSR and communication.

The currently dominant version of the corporate form – the profit-maximizing corporation – is one of the most influential organizational forms in contemporary society. It is also one of the most criticized organizational forms, especially with respect to questions of purpose, participation, and ownership. The corporation’s strong focus on profit maximization and its non-democratic nature, as it excludes non-shareholding stakeholders from participating in how the corporation is run, have all attracted significant criticism. There are, however, several debates over alternative ways of organizing besides the corporation. In this chapter, we review the most influential of these: co-operatives, state-owned enterprises, democratically organized firms, social enterprises, stakeholder firms, and firms based on the sharing economy business model. We first analyze how these alternative ways of organizing do things differently with respect to questions of purpose, participation, and ownership and then we discuss how these different approaches can inspire efforts to reform the corporation.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is not new in the industrial society, as every corporation has embedded the philosophy of doing good and doing well in its business ethics for different motives. Literature established that CSR policies, theories and practices differ across countries, cultures and civilisations. The globalisation wave forced on global corporations a unified understanding of theories and practice of CSR from the perspective of developed countries of America and Britain. Britain's exit from the European Union and America's egocentric national policies launched by President Donald Trump are evidence of an increased leaning toward isolationism, and strong cases of anti-globalisation have been established by these nations. The purpose of this theoretical research is to investigate within the raging Globalisation and Anti-Globalisation debates, the key factors that motivate corporations from different contexts to initiate CSR programmes and the focus of programmes. This research adopts a qualitative research method, leveraging previous scholarly works, working papers, case studies and relevant internet resources. Insightful information from afore-mentioned sources were critically discussed from which useful findings were derived to support the subject of inquiry (factors that motivate CSR programmes and focus of programmes). It was found that similar factors motivate corporations with globalisation and isolation mindsets to embrace CSR programmes, but the focus of CSR programs of corporations differ, yet the programmes oscillate around economic, social and environmental dimensions of CSR. The gap left by the chapter is for future researchers to carry out an empirical investigation on the research.

We explore the significance of social ontology and its capacity to inform the specification of organizational status, architecture and capacities. We consider how different conceptions of social ontology are critical for explicating a range of epistemological and socio-economic questions concerning organizations and develop a research agenda oriented to studying these issues from the perspective of management and organization studies.