Search results

Designing and developing responsible business practices can create various tensions for service organizations. The purpose of this research is to develop a deeper understanding of the relationship between customer engagement (CE) and responsible business practices (e.g. environmental, social and/or governance [ESG], corporate social responsibility [CSR] and diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI]) and explore customer engagement tensions that service organizations may face.

This research develops a list of CE-related responsible business practice tensions and empirically explores their relevance through in-depth interviews with nine ESG professionals.

This paper makes three important contributions. First, we find support for nine distinct but related tensions with implications for CE that organizations must navigate when pursuing responsible business practices. Second, interview participants provide some suggestions for tackling these tensions, which we support with relevant theories. Finally, we develop a conceptual framework that may stimulate future service research and inform the implementation of ESG strategies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this research is the first to conceptualize and empirically explore the tensions that emerge between responsible business practices and CE. The authors develop a novel analysis of the CE-related tensions that emerge when pursuing an ESG strategy.

The findings are based on a small sample of ESG professionals. Future research may take a quantitative approach to further evaluate the role that these tensions play in engaging customers.

This research provides a conceptual framework that may guide ESG professionals in understanding, framing and navigating CE-related tensions when pursuing responsible business practices.

A social benefit may be found when service organizations are better able to successfully navigate CE-related tensions when pursuing responsible business practices.

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.

Organizations are confronted with problems and political risks to which they have to respond, presenting a need to develop tools and frames of understanding requisite to do so. In this article, we argue for the necessity of cultivating “political judgment” with a “sense of reality,” especially in the upper echelons of organizations. This article has two objectives: First to highlight how a number of recent interlinked developments within organizational analysis and practice have contributed to weakening judgment and its accompanying “sense of reality.” Second, to (re)introduce some canonical works that, although less in vogue recently, provide both a source of wisdom and frames of understanding that are key to tackling today’s problems. We begin by mapping the context in which the need for the cultivation of political judgment within organizations has arisen: (i) increasing proliferation of political risks and “wicked problems” to which it is expected that organizations adapt and respond; (ii) a wider historical and contemporary context in which the exercise of judgment has been undermined – a result of a combination of economics-inspired styles of theorizing and an associated obsession with metrics. We also explore the nature of “political judgment” and its accompanying “sense of reality” through the work of authors such as Philip Selznick, Max Weber, Chester Barnard, and Isaiah Berlin. We suggest that these authors have a weighty “sense of reality”; are antithetical to “high,” “abstract,” or “axiomatic” theorizing; and have a profound sense of the burden from exercising political judgment in difficult organizational circumstances.

This paper offers a new vision of responsible service leadership for service organizations nested in economic, societal and environmental contexts across time to foster collective flourishing.

Following the call for novel perspectives that recognize service as a game among (vs between) people in service ecosystems, we build on service leadership theory to integrate insights from infinite (vs finite) games and biomimicry practices to propose a holistic model for responsible service leadership.

We extend the 3C (competence, character and care) model of service leadership (Shek et al., 2021) adding context and chronos as essential pillars of responsible service leadership in nested ecosystems. We offer new interpretations and applications of the 3Cs through the lens of context and chronos.

This paper furthers the emerging conversation about unique leadership approaches for service, linking existing service leadership theories with holistic views of service ecosystems and enabling a shift from decontextualized models of leadership to a more inclusive approach.

We propose that responsible service leadership can inspire new approaches to leadership development within organizations and in business education (e.g. competencies, settings) and a reconsideration of organizational structures (e.g. culture, selection and incentive design).

The proposed 5C model revisits foundational assumptions of responsibility in service leadership, integrating actors across and within service ecosystems, society at large and the environment in the present and future.

This paper offers a conceptual framework – the 5Cs model of responsible service leadership – aimed at reimagining service leadership.

The advent of Internet of Things, cloud computing and advanced computing has endowed smart manufacturing environments with resilience, reconfigurability and intelligence, resulting in the emergence of novel capabilities. These capabilities have significantly reshaped the manufacturing ecosystem, enabling it to effectively navigate uncertainties. The purpose of this study is to assess the operational transformations resulting from the implementation of smart manufacturing, which distinguish it from conventional systems.

A list of qualitative and quantitative smart manufacturing performance metrics (SMPMs) are initially suggested and categorized into strategic, tactical and operational levels. The SMPMs resemble the capabilities of smart manufacturing systems to manage disruptions due to uncertainties. Then, industry and academia experts validate the SMPMs through the utilization of the Delphi method, enabling the ranking of the SMPMs.

The proposition of the SMPMs serves as a metric to assess the digital transformation capabilities of smart manufacturing systems. In addition, the ranking of the proposed SMPMs shows a degree of relevance of the measures in smart manufacturing deployment and managing the disruptions caused due to the COVID-19 pandemic

The findings benefit managers, consultants, policymakers and researchers in making appropriate decisions for deploying and operationalizing smart manufacturing systems by focusing on critical SMPMs.

The research provides a metric to assess the operational transformations during the deployment of smart manufacturing systems. Also, it states the role of the metric in managing the potential disruptions that can alter the performance of the business due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This paper aims to identify and empirically analyze useful and applicable metrics for measuring and managing the sustainability performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

To achieve the objective of the paper, potential metrics were adopted from previous research related to industrial sustainability and an empirical analysis was carried to assess the applicability of the metrics by collecting empirical data from Italian footwear SMEs using a structured questionnaire. The SMEs were selected using a convenience sampling method.

The results of the within-case analysis and the cross-case analysis indicate that the majority of the metrics were found to be useful and applicable to each of the SMEs and across the SMEs, respectively. These metrics emphasized measuring industrial sustainability performance related to financial benefits, costs and market competitiveness for the economic sustainability dimension; resources for the environmental sustainability dimension; and customers, employees and the community for the social sustainability dimension.

Apart from the within-case analysis and cross-case analysis, it was not possible to conduct statistical analysis since a small number of SMEs were accessible to collect empirical data.

The findings of the paper have considerable academic, managerial and policy implications and will provide a theoretical basis for future research on measuring and managing industrial sustainability performance. By providing a set of empirically supported metrics based on the triple bottom line approach (i.e. economic, environmental and social metrics), this paper contributes to the existing knowledge in the field of industrial sustainability performance measurement.

This paper aims to investigate the potential mediating effect of environmental disclosure on the relationship between corporate governance and the disclosure of social information by disaggregating Bloomberg ESG (Environmental-Social-Governance) scores. The polluting level of a company is examined for its potential moderating effect.

The focus is on the S&P 500. A structural equation model (SEM) is proposed that considers the effects of governance board constructs on the voluntary disclosure of social information (S-score) mediated by the voluntary disclosure of environmental information (E-score). The model is fit separately for two groups of companies (high-polluting and low-polluting), and the path coefficients are compared.

Consistent with prior research, board independence, gender diversity, and size positively impact voluntary environmental disclosure; board age is found to have a significant but negative effect. The estimated path coefficient from E-score to S-score is strong, positive, and significant; environmental disclosure fully mediates the relationship between corporate governance and social disclosure. This path coefficient is significantly greater for those companies in the high-polluting group.

The findings indicate that high-polluting companies may engage in increased voluntary disclosure of social information as reputation insurance. E-score fully mediates the relationship between corporate governance and S-score more strongly for high-polluting companies, suggesting this group is more likely to engage in and report on socially responsible behaviors to deflect attention away from environmental performance (i.e. greendeflecting).

The purpose of this study is to delve into the intricate terrain of assimilating sustainability practices into digital accounting and finance, centring on the transformative dynamics introduced by artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled FinTech. The primary objective is to scrutinize critical lacunae in existing literature, exploring how organizations can meticulously construct comprehensive sustainability frameworks. Simultaneously, the study investigates the protracted repercussions of AI-enabled FinTech on the enduring sustainability paradigms.

Executing a systematic literature review, the research engaged in the meticulous identification and assessment of a voluminous pool of 1,158 articles. Using a judicious two-phase strategy, the scrutiny distilled a mere 64 pertinent articles, subjecting them to rigorous evaluation encompassing methodologies, contributions and overall quality. The Fuzzy Delphi method was used to elicit expert opinions and facilitate consensus-building, leveraging fuzzy logic to accommodate uncertainties in the data.

The review navigates the convoluted impact of AI across diverse sectors, accentuating its transformative imprint on realms such as health care, finance and transportation. Specifically, in the financial domain, the discerning eye of AI-enabled FinTech optimizes investment portfolios, augments risk assessment, propels financial inclusion and streamlines the intricate landscape of sustainability reporting. The study meticulously pinpoints research gaps encompassing investment optimization, risk management, financial inclusion, sustainability reporting and ethical considerations within the intricate milieu of AI-enabled FinTech. This research contributes to the existing body of knowledge by synthesizing intricate thematic strands, discerning overarching trends and spotlighting critical voids in the synthesis of sustainability practices and AI-enabled FinTech. The findings resonate with far-reaching implications, emphasizing the exigency of comprehensive investigations into the longitudinal sustainability ramifications instigated by AI-enabled FinTech.

The study underscores the imperative of crafting robust ethical frameworks for the equitable and transparent deployment of AI solutions within the intricate landscape of FinTech. Moreover, this research stands poised to shape organizational strategies, inform regulatory frameworks and guide investment decisions, thereby catalyzing the cultivation of conscientious and sustainable financial practices.

Based on stakeholder, agency and institutional theory, this study aims to examine the role of institutional ownership in the relationship between environmental, social and governance practices and CEO compensation.

Utilizing a fixed-effect panel regression analysis, this research utilized a panel data approach, analyzing data spanning from 2014 to 2021, focusing on US companies listed on the S&P500 stock market index. The dataset encompassed 219 companies, leading to a total of 1,533 observations.

The analysis identified that environmental scores significantly impact CEO equity-linked compensation, unlike social and governance scores. Additionally, it was found that institutional ownership acts as a moderating factor in the relationship between the environmental score and CEO equity-linked compensation, as well as the association between the social score and CEO equity-linked compensation. Interestingly, the direction of these moderating effects varied between the two relationships, suggesting a nuanced role of institutional ownership.

This research makes a unique contribution to the field of corporate governance by exploring the relatively understudied area of institutional ownership's influence on the ESG practices–CEO compensation nexus.

Consumer perception of corporate brand equity has primarily focused on product brand dimensions, neglecting considerations at the firm analysis level. Assessing corporate brands requires different criteria relevant to the competitiveness of companies, such as their prominence, management and meeting society’s demands. In this sense, this study aims to develop and validate a scale of corporate brand equity founded on consumer perceptions, transcending industry boundaries and comparing its relationship with companies' market share.

The authors used an integrative approach to clarify the construct’s domain, building on previous measures. They took several steps to select appropriate items, refine the measure, validate it through reliability tests and convergent and discriminant analyses, test the validity of the second-order formative structure of corporate brand equity and assess associations between first-order factors, the second-order factor and market share.

The model identifies three first-order dimensions of corporate brands (presence, outstanding management and responsible) that shape the second-order factor (corporate brand equity). They are directly related, but not proportionally, to market share, contributing to the general and joint assessment of the company’s competitive performance considering the consumer.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first attempt to develop a comprehensive measurement model of corporate brand equity that considers the firm level of analysis, combines metrics from previous research on corporate brand evaluation criteria and includes consumer perceptions of the company’s competitiveness, unifying branding theory with the theory of the marketing firm.