Search results

The aim of this paper is to investigate the purpose of the business school in light of the growing globalization of the business world.

The paper investigates the purpose of the business school, with views from the literature. It also presents views as to the purpose of the business school today.

The paper finds that the purpose of the business school is to create value in the forms of academic, personal and public or social value.

This paper has interesting information as to the purpose and role of business schools in the globalizing modern world.

One way of looking at the association between ethics and stakeholder theory – of examining the idea that stakeholder theory has a strong moral foundation – is to consider how the stakeholder approach might in fact be directly driven by and guided by the moral obligations of business. An alternative perspective we offer is that stakeholder theory only indirectly derives from the moral obligations of business, with business purpose serving as a mediating factor. We work through the fairly straightforward logic behind that alternative perspective in this chapter. We argue that it is a better way to think about the association between ethics and stakeholder theory, particularly because it allows for a theoretical and practical distinction between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory can thereby continue developing as a theory of strategic management, even as it brings morals to the fore in ways that other approaches to strategic management do not.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The contemporary dialog surrounding social and environmental crises has strengthened the call for a reconsideration of the capitalist economic system, prompting a reimagining of businesses’ societal roles. This chapter explores the shifting terrain of corporate purpose as a driving force for positive societal change, challenging the traditional shareholder primacy doctrine.

After examining influential theoretical frameworks shaping the discourse on corporate purpose, this research unveils the results of an empirical investigation inspired by the 2019 American Business Roundtable’s (BRT) statement on corporate purpose, where numerous prominent American CEOs advocated for a shift toward a stakeholder-oriented approach. In our exercise, the authors employ semantic and cognitive linguistic analyses to measure the coherence between the language in the BRT statement and the content of sustainability reports. This approach aims to offer insights into the alignment or divergence between corporate declarations and actual practices concerning corporate purpose.

Empirical findings reveal that corporations emphasizing their purpose in sustainability reports using language resembling that of the BRT statement tend to demonstrate lower implementation scores. Conversely, implementors lean toward using language in sustainability reports that diverges from the BRT statement. These findings suggest a potential disconnection between stated purpose and actual implementation in companies emphasizing corporate purpose in their reports.

The study research contributes theoretical insights by exploring how corporations can incorporate purpose-driven practices to promote sustainable growth and societal well-being. It underscores the potential for businesses to play a pivotal role in reshaping the economic landscape and advocates for ongoing research in humanistic management models.

The debate about corporate purpose is a recurring one that has re-emerged today. What should be the guiding principles of business: the pursuit of profit or a contribution to public interest? We trace key elements in this debate in Britain and America, from the interwar years, when John Maynard Keynes and Adolf Berle made important contributions, to the 1970s, when events ushered in a return to laissez-faire and the rise to dominance of the shareholder primacy model of corporate governance and purpose, to today. Both the earlier and the current debates are centered around whether we see business institutions as strictly private entities, transacting with their suppliers, workers, and customers on terms agreed with or imposed upon these groups, or as part of society at large and therefore expected to contribute to what society deems to be its interests. Whether current developments will ultimately produce a shift in corporate purpose akin to the one that followed the Second World War remains to be seen. But the parallels to the interwar debates, and the uncertain economic, political, and social environments in which they took place, are striking. Our objective is to see what might be learned from the past to inform the current direction of thought concerning capitalism and corporate purpose.

1.1 What Are Accounts For? Overview The purpose of accounts is to reveal performance in the conduct of a business or other activity concerned with use of economic resources (e.g. a club). It is thus a matter of stewardship. Although, like economics, it is necessary in accounting to use money as a measure of performance, it is concerned with the individual organisation rather than with economic phenomena as a whole.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

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.