Search results

Mission statements are used for a variety of reasons in organizations, including defining the purpose of the institution, communicating with its stakeholders, shaping its strategic planning process, providing a realistic snapshot of its everyday work, and outlining its future goals or objectives (among many others). For many academic libraries, mission statements are used to showcase resources, services, technologies, and innovations. The purpose of this study is to examine the mission statements of libraries that have won the ACRL Excellence in Libraries Award and analyze whether (or not) the winning libraries used innovation to create a distinct environment that was reflected through their mission statements. The study uses the work of Pearce and David (1987) to determine what elements are included in the mission statements. This chapter utilizes qualitative methodology in the study.

Pearce and David (1987) outline eight elements found in mission statements: target customer; principal products/services; geographic domain; core technologies; survival, growth, or profit; company philosophy; self-concept; and public image. This qualitative study finds that the mission statements of the academic libraries collectively included seven of the elements, omitting survival, growth, or profit universally. Also, the inclusion of these elements allows many of the libraries to create their unique description, unveiling a commitment to innovation.

As an original research study, this chapter adds a unique perspective to the concept of innovation in academic libraries, particularly as it examines the mission statements of award-winning libraries to determine if innovation is found in these foundational documents.

The contemporary business world has been facing mounting criticism for quite a long time. The accusations relate to the short-sightedness of business decisions, strategies oriented solely to profit-making, hostile takeovers, a focus on cost reduction, employee redundancies, etc. This has led to a decline in trust towards business executives, as shown, for example, by the 2016 GfK Trust Index based on research conducted in 27 countries, including 13 European ones. According to the survey, managers and entrepreneurs are ranked 22nd out of 32 professions analysed (Trust in Professions, 2016). This relatively low level of trust in business managers, coupled with the new challenges created by a changing business environment which managers must cope with in order to stay in the market, means that contemporary companies have to change. Corporations are increasingly being challenged as to their function in society. Entrepreneurs must face the challenges connected not only with increasing competition or the development of new technologies, but also growing social expectations. This means that companies today must be managed not only effectively, but also responsibly. This chapter will present the findings of research on the place of sustainability marketing activities in the system of goals for contemporary organizations. To begin with, market trends will be discussed, which in today’s world to the greatest extent influence the marketing strategies of small and medium-sized enterprises in the food and drink sector, as well as the challenges such companies face nowadays. Next, a change in the significance of the strategic goals that these companies set for themselves will be discussed. The final part of the chapter will focus on sustainability aspects in the strategies adopted by SMEs.

This chapter gives in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue” a critical analysis of the standard (economic) Human Capital (HC) theory, with the help of some “traditional” (founding) accounting concepts. From this study, to avoid the accounting and social issues highlighted in “Introduction to the Human Capital Issue,” we present, in “The “Triple Depreciation Line” Model and the Human Capital,” the “Triple Depreciation Line” (TDL) accounting model, developed by Rambaud & Richard (2015b), and we apply it to “HC,” but viewed as genuine accounting capital – a matter of concern – that firms have to protect and maintain.

From a critical review of literature on HC theory, from the origin of this concept to its connection with sustainable development, this chapter provides a conceptual discussion on this notion and on the differences/common points between capital and assets in accounting and economics. Then, it uses a normative accounting model (TDL), initially introduced to extend, in a consistent way, financial accounting to extra-financial issues.

This analysis shows at first that the standard (economic) HC theory is based on a (deliberate) confusion between assets and capital, in line with a standard economic perspective on capital. Therefore, this particular viewpoint implies: an accounting issue for reporting HC, because “traditional” accounting capital and assets are clearly isolated concepts; and a societal issue, because this confusion leads to the idea that HC does not mean that human beings are “capital” (i.e., essential), or have to be maintained, even protected, for themselves. It only means that human beings are mere productive means. The application of the TDL model to an accounting redefinition of HC allows a discussion about some key issues involved in the notion of HC, including the difference between the standard and “accounting” narratives on HC. Finally, this chapter presents some important consequences of this accounting model for HC: the disappearance of the concept of wage and the possibility of reporting repeated (or continuous) use of HC directly in the balance sheet.

This chapter contributes to the literature on HC and in general on capital and assets, by stressing in particular some confusions and misunderstandings in these concepts. It fosters a cross-disciplinary approach of these issues, through economic, accounting, and sustainability viewpoints. This analysis also participates in the development of the TDL model and the research project associated. It finally proposes another perspective, more sustainable, on HC and HC reporting.

The stakes of HC are important in today’s economics, accounting, and sustainable development. The different conceptualizations of HC, and the narratives behind it, may have deep social and corporate implications. In this context, this analysis provides a conceptual, and practicable, framework to develop a more sustainable concept of HC and to enhance working conditions, internal business relations, integrated reporting. As an outcome of these ideas, this chapter also questions the standard corporate governance models.

This chapter gives an original perspective on HC, and in general on the concept of capital, combining an economic and an accounting analysis. It also develops a new way to report HC, using an innovative integrated accounting model, the TDL model.

This chapter proposes that organizational strategy formation should be characterized theoretically as a process that is subject to several interacting forces, rather than represented by separate discrete decision-models or theoretic perspectives, as is commonly done in the strategic management literature. Based on an extensive review of relevant theory and empirical work in strategic decision-making, organizational change theory, cognitive and social psychology, and strategy processes, seven kinds of “forces” – rational, imposed, teleological, learning, political, heuristic, and social – are identified as interacting in and having significant influence on the strategy formation process. It is further argued that by applying a holistic “forces-view” of the significant and interacting influences on strategy formation, we can better understand the dynamics and challenges in managing the process of defining and changing organizational strategies.

Government agencies have endeavored, with limited success, to improve the methodological consistency of regulatory benefit–cost analysis (BCA). This paper recommends that an independent cohort of economists, policy analysts and legal scholars take on that task. Independently established “best practices” would have four positive effects: (1) they would render BCAs more regular in form and format and, thus, more readily assessable and replicable by social scientists; (2) improved consistency might marginally reduce political opposition to BCA as a policy tool; (3) politically-motivated, inter-agency methodological disputes might be avoided; and (4) an independent set of “best practices” would provide a sound, independent basis for judicial review of agency BCAs.