Search results

The paper seeks to explore how globalization processes have shaped the nature, scope, and time frame of considerations of social responsibility and the development of a corporate social responsibility (CSR) regime. The paper identifies three generations of human rights' values embedded within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and aims to argue that they inspire and influence contemporary discussions about, and practices of CSR.

Employing the emergence of the human rights regime as a paradigmatic case comparison, the interrelationships of states, non‐governmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations in the development of new conceptions and expectations of, and organizations for CSR were explored.

The paper finds strong parallels between the growth of the global human rights regime and the burgeoning international attention paid to issues of CSR and sustainability. Four critical stages are identified: the formal articulation of norms, the increasing role of NGOs, changing power dynamics between state, NGOs, and multinational corporations, and the reconfiguration of network density and diversity.

The paper suggests that attention to the communicative processes associated with the development of the international human rights regime provides important insights for the future development of a global CSR regime.

Through the introduction of the three generations of human rights discourse, communicative actions and pathways from which a global corporate social responsibility regime may emerge were articulated.

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in human life. It existed during Biblical times when Joseph, the seventeen‐year‐old son of Jacob, was kidnapped and sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. Although terrorists have been active throughout history, it is only recently that we have seen an increase in scholarly interest in the phenomenon of terrorism. One reason for this is the fact that terrorist activities have increased dramatically since the 1960s. Everyday we read in the newspapers and hear on radio and television details of the latest terrorist outrage. Many American colleges and universities now offer a course or two on terrorism as a part of their curriculum.

Looks at the self‐reported perceptions of police chiefs in a majority of US cities with a population exceeding 100,000. Identifies, regionally and nationally, those internal domestic groups that have the greatest potential for terrorism within the next two years. Finds that anti‐abortionists were predicted to be the most likely group to attack at national level, but that when predictions were sought for geographical areas, each respondent believed that there was a greater likelihood of terrorism in Washington DC or New York City than in their own area. Finds that there had been no significant increase in planning against terrorism.

This chapter summarizes many conceptual, theoretical, and methodological topics related to studying group communication using qualitative research methods. First, it explains five of the most common theoretical frameworks used by group communication scholars (i.e., symbolic convergence theory, bona fide group perspective, unobtrusive control theory, dialectical theory, and structuration theory). Next, it discusses best practices and issues related to different data collection methods including observations, historical case studies, ethnographies, focus groups, and interview studies. Then, the chapter describes two primary data analytic tools, various iterations of constant comparison method, and qualitative content analysis. Finally, the chapter describes several innovative qualitative methods that may lead to new understandings of group communication processes including discourse analysis and discourse tracing, as well as new approaches to collecting qualitative network data and mediated data. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future research suggestions.

Digital technologies, and the affordances they provide, can shape institutional processes in significant ways. In the last decade, social media and other digital platforms have redefined civic engagement by enabling new ways of connecting, collaborating, and mobilizing. In this article, we examine how technological affordances can both enable and hinder institutional processes through visibilization – which we define as the enactment of technological features to foreground and give voice to particular perspectives and discourses while silencing others. We study such dynamics by examining #SchauHin, an activist campaign initiated in Germany to shine a spotlight on experiences of daily racism. Our findings show how actors and counter-actors differentially leveraged the technological features of two digital platforms to shape the campaign. Our study has implications for understanding the role of digital technologies in institutional processes as well as the interplay between affordances and visibility in efforts to deinstitutionalize discriminatory practices and institutions.

Juries are a decision making peer group composed of citizens who did not volunteer for the task, who do not know one another, and who are not connected to the people and events in the trial on which they will render a verdict. This chapter illuminates the communication events during deliberations, from selecting a foreperson, deciding when and how to vote, participation and turn-taking, the emergence of conflict, and rule-breaking. Deadlock juries, storytelling jurors, and juror misconduct are described during the group's task. Sources for scholars to gain access to jury data, partner with organizations in the judicial system, and available recent recordings of jury deliberations are shared. Knowledge gaps are pointed out in understanding how group verdicts emerge from the unregulated talk of jurors, as well as new challenges for the judicial system as the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic suddenly rendered jury service an unhealthy task for citizens.

While there is a growing body of literature seeking to explain interorganisational cooperative relationships, little from a communication perspective has emerged. This paper outlines the critical role played by communication in interfirm stategic alliances evident in Australia's telecommunications sector, concentrating on relationships involving the three carriers — Telecom, Optus, and Vodafone — and their firsttier ‘partners’. The study methodology focuses on in‐depth interviews with key industry and government executives. A key finding was the central role played by interpersonal relationships, centred on communication embedded in a climate of trust and commitment. The paper is divided into seven sections: (1) an introduction to the area of interorganisational cooperation; (2) an outline of the Australian telecommunications industry as the focus of the empirical work reported in the paper; (3) a discussion of how to best understand interorganisational cooperation, including an outline of the strategic alliances and partnerships involved in the study; (4) debate on how best to manage such alliances; (5) characterising the central role of communication for such relationships; (6) describing perceptions of such alliances; and (7) a conclusion, including pointers to future research directions and practices in the field.

It has been more than 20 years since the idea of binding multinational corporations directly to international law was abandoned. Since then, concerned actors have sought to manage corporate conduct through voluntary regulation. However, little is known about the instruments produced in this regard. This study aims to understand the properties of the instruments that govern or regulate corporate social responsibility at the international level.

Systematic literature review and content analysis methods were combined to compile a list of 229 international corporate social responsibility instruments (ICSRIs) produced by intergovernmental (IGOs) and international nongovernmental (INGOs) organizations. These instruments were categorized according to an adapted classification framework.

The majority of instruments from our sample are produced by INGOs, focus on management activities and are applicable to specific industries. The most common issues addressed by the instruments are related to worker protection, human rights, governance and the environment. A limited number of instruments specify stakeholders’ involvement or feature an external orientation. Instruments rarely address issues related to product quality and safety, economic contribution or social performance.

Without a comprehensive overview, it has been difficult to develop broad-based understandings about voluntary regulation as a mechanism for controlling corporate conduct internationally. This study’s findings offer valuable insights, allowing policymakers and industry practitioners to understand the effectiveness of, and make appropriate enhancements to, ICSRIs.

By enhancing ICSRIs to address the limitations highlighted in the current study, multinational corporations can be induced into contributing more productively to the sustainable development of the societies they impact and play a greater role in the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Previous research has largely concentrated on analyzing small numbers of carefully selected instruments in a conceptual or descriptive approach. In contrast, this study represents a novel approach of systematic compilation and quantitative classification for a comprehensive list of ICSRIs.

Many analyses point to Trump's behavior on the world stage – bullying and racketeering more reminiscent of a mafioso than a statesman – as a personal character flaw. We argue that, while this behavior was shocking in how unvarnished it was, Trump marks the culmination of a decades-long trend that shifted US foreign policy from a regime of “legitimate protection” in the mid-twentieth century to a “protection racket” by the turn of the twenty-first. While the temperaments of successive presidents have mattered, the problems facing the United States and its role in the world are not attributable to personalities but are fundamentally structural, in large part stemming from the contradictions of US attempts to cling to preeminence in the face of a changing global distribution of power. The inability of successive US administrations – Trump and Biden included – to break out of the mindset of US primacy has resulted in a situation of “domination without hegemony” in which the United States plays an increasingly dysfunctional role in the world. This dynamic has plunged the world into a period of systemic chaos analogous to the first half of the twentieth century.