Search results

The chapter examines the simultaneous rise of a new spirit of isolationism amid the increasing role of globalization of business and economic activity. It focuses on the competing claims regarding whether Africa could be better off or not in the light of the current isolationist views being expressed by some world leaders and countries. The chapter’s importancve lies in the fact that it contributes to a discussion which has been of considerable concern to many people of late. Whilst it is still too early to predict the long-term effect on the current isolationist policies by some developed countries, it is quite clear that Africa will lose the attention of the world in view of the recent happenings. Ironically, the uncertainty and disruption underway could also provide the needed impetus that can propel the continent to assume responsibility for itself and thereby strife to develop itself more efficiently and effectively than it has ever done.

Globalization and its impacts on economies, societies and cultures has been a hot topic of research and discussion in the past few years. Recent times are witnessing the upsurge of another doctrine in the international arena – the practice of isolationism, a policy majorly related to political affairs but extendable to business, sustainability, green behaviour and various other spheres.

Globalization has resulted in various kinds of disordering and reordering of business objectives and practices. Modern day consumers have new needs and lifestyle orientations. The flip side is that increased global operations have precipitated newer challenges for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). But for managing globalization, isolationism is not the answer (Altman, 2007). Isolationism cannot be expected to have reciprocative effects of globalization. In fact, it may be in dispute with interests of many social stakeholders.

Responsible businesses have reoriented their CSR initiatives towards environmental and social stewardship. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the more recent strategic tools that provide a more focussed mandate to address sustainability issues emerging from increased production, consumption and disposal. In the times of vulnerabilities and disruption, there is an increasing emphasis on developing CSR as a horizontal enabler of SDGs.

Fashion & textile industry is the second most polluting industry globally. Fast fashion is having catastrophic impacts on the environment. Due to the massive size and magnitude of the global fashion & textile industry (USD 920 billion in 2018 and projected to grow to USD 1,230 billion by 2024), it becomes important to examine dimensions of CSR, in reference to SDGs in this sector. The fashion & textile industry is one of the most globally integrated. Sourcing, production, supply chain management, market development and retailing are all dependent on integration and collaboration amongst various business entities and regulatory bodies across national boundaries. Isolationism may result in disorientations in the enabling environments of this industry.

As sustainability is going to be the most important directive in coming future, the study aims to examine the cohesiveness between the current CSR initiatives of the fashion & textile sector and the prescribed SDGs. The study will further investigate if the instantaneous momentum of isolationism could cultivate multifaceted challenges for the horizontal integration of CSR in SDGs; and if yes, what will be the nature of these challenges?

This paper describes how firm characteristics evolve in different industries. In particular, it reports on relationships between industry performance and competitor diversity in the American economy from 1981 to 1997. Industry performance is measured using a prospective measure of performance (Tobin's q) and a measure of performance that reflects historical competence (accounting profitability). Competitor diversity is characterized by differences in size, operating margin, asset composition, and asset utilization. The results indicate significant diversity among competitors in both high- and low-performance industries. The study suggests that low industry performance may be associated with processes of transition in competitor characteristics.

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.

Under the authoritarian rule of Enver Hoxha, Albania pursued one of the more unusual variants of a planned economy, increasingly isolated from the rest of the socialist world. In this chapter, the authors consider the interplay between the Hoxha’s policy of economic isolationism and the economics produced in isolation. Several conclusions can be drawn. First, much like in other authoritarian regimes, economic theory did not drive economic policy; rather political ideology determined policy; economic theories were retroactively constructed and used as justification. Second, authoritarian-decreed economic theory (dogma) meant that the job of Albanian economists was distinctly different from what we observe elsewhere. Albanian economists played two roles – propaganda for regime positions and technical support for regime policies. Third, and most uniquely Albanian, economic and political isolation created an echo-chamber where theory was functionally irrelevant to policy-making or practice. Decreed economic theory was substantively empty, and new ideas were shut out. This had profound implications for Albania’s eventual transition to a market economy.

Declining growth rates and rising unemployment as well as socio-economic inequalities signalled the crisis of globalisation. Dissent around socio-economic inequalities and austerity measures was articulated by far-right political parties and populist leaders coupled with the rise of anti-immigrant and xenophobic political parties. Within this historical context, this chapter has two concerns. First, how do mainstream and critical approaches within the discipline of International Political Economy explicate double crises of liberalism (economic liberalism and political liberalism) and rise of populism and far-right politics. It then aims to uncover what these approaches anticipate for future prospects of globalisation and which kind of strategies they put forward to overcome the crises. Second, the chapter then aspires to study to what extent there is retreat from globalisation and a rising trend of isolationism through debating continuity and change in terms of foreign direct investment and international trade after 2007–2008 crisis. Is it possible to observe change in the flow of foreign direct investment and internationalisation/transnationalisation of production? Are economies moving towards protectionism? What happens to multilateral and bilateral trade agreements after the failure of Doha talks? In a nutshell, is there a retreat from globalisation or is it simply populism and/or post-truth society that the world is going through under the current context?

Antiglobalisation sentiments appear to be on the rise in some parts of the world. As such, there are concerns that this may in turn jeopardise some of the common business practices, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR). This study argues that that is not the case. On the contrary, CSR is firmly entrenched as an institution in the political, economic and social structures of the globalised market. By that reason, it is relatively insulated from any attempts to undo the process of globalisation. However, the proliferation of connections between individuals, organisations and institutions across the world in recent years has irrevocably changed the market dynamics, particularly in relation to the process of value creation between a firm and its stakeholders. In this new market landscape, stakeholders play an active role in exchanging resources amongst themselves towards achieving socioeconomic outcomes, with the firm facilitating or mediating the connections. Thus, we see the rise of new value chains and business propositions. In light of that, CSR too would need to evolve and adapt to the current market circumstances or otherwise risk losing legitimacy. For that purpose, a fresh market paradigm is required. To that end, this study proposes the adoption of the service-dominant logic (SDL) perspective as a general framework for firms to conceive and operationalise their CSR. It concludes with an illustrative case, which provides some indication of how the precepts of SDL could be applied in the context of CSR, in an age of enhanced interactivity between the various actors.

The essence of responsibility in leadership can help to integrate course of action of policy makers and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This will augment meaningfulness of the humanity in human in the present era of isolationism, when everyone is becoming the part of the race. However, the precise criterion of different contexts of behaviour for Corporate Social Performance (CSP) that the pioneers or leaders understood and demonstrate the accountability is uncertain. This ambiguity and multiple dimensions of responsible leadership (RL) present in the current literature are concurring. Gaps identified indicates that there should be a methodical research on the impact of such leadership on the societal and firm level of outcomes. By following interpretivism approach in research, this paper relies on the content analysis of speeches, welcome stories, biographies and recorded interviews of selected business leaders and entrepreneurs in India. This research study identifies four different dimensions of orientation that leaders practice while fulfilling their responsibility and envisioning CSR. The limitation of this study is that it tries to map the leader's orientation under a cultural spectrum, but its findings still provide major insights for the future perspective of research based on the RL matrix model. The outcome of this study will be useful for the leaders to recognise the dimensions of responsible leadership for creating value addition in their style and practices. The model identified envisages practical implications of the corporate social responsibility theory.

This chapter focuses on the newness of neighbour relations and new scenarios of neighbouring that have emerged in the recently built residential districts of large Russian cities – Moscow and St Petersburg. In the last decades, the scenarios of neighbouring in Russia have undergone significant changes due to the collapse of the Soviet system and the formation of a new sociality. In this situation, new urban districts have become a testing ground where new scenarios of neighbouring have been developed in everyday communication. The study finds that the emerging scenario of neighbouring differs from lifelong Soviet neighbouring with its close personal contacts, as well as from the isolationism of the 1990–2000s, and is based on the management and flexible reconfiguration of neighbour relations. This chapter argues that the newness of urban settings is a special state that influences neighbour relations and leads to enthusiasm for, and intensification of, interaction between neighbours; the invention of new forms of neighbour relations; and the actualisation of neighbour solidarity in a space that is still deficient in other ways. While newness is a state that allows creative forms of sociality to flourish, it is also a limiting state in the way it imposes absence and deficiencies upon residents that requires them to create new, compensatory structures and solidarities.

The United States, it was once felt, could have a different foreign policy when isolated by two oceans in comparison to the later period when modern technology destroyed its isolation. Foreign policy is thus a function of geography modified by technology. The United States, commencing some time after the first third of the 19th century, had a further choice. It could live up to its self-image as a liberal constitutional democracy and follow a foreign policy of live and let live, in both respects serving as a role model for the rest of the world. Or, like the monarchical dynasties of the past and other regimes of more recent times, it could pursue an aggressive foreign policy in pursuit of what it considered its interests, engendering enmity in various quarters. The United States has done both. In the first category it has preferred isolationism, reluctantly joining the two World Wars in defense of its autonomy. In the second category, it increasingly either engaged in the practices of conventional imperialism, often at the behest of entrepreneurial interests, or flexed and deployed its muscle in pursuit of national interests either on its own initiative or in response to threats from and capabilities of other countries. The former is American exceptionalism; the latter is conventional. Of course, the history is much more complex than the foregoing directly allows. Several other stories or models can be developed (the most recent is Mead, 2001).