Search results

The main goal of this study is to analyze the influence of social capital and corporate ethics on social progress. A theoretical model is proposed, and the hypotheses were tested on a sample of 32 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries between 2011 and 2018 that includes data from the Social Progress Imperative non-profit organization as well as from the World Economic Forum database (Global Competitiveness Reports). The results indicate that, although both social capital and corporate ethics have a direct influence on social progress, social capital also influences corporate ethics so that the latter acts as a mediating variable between social capital and social progress.

Social development is the ultimate goal of every nation, and climate change is a major stumbling block. Climate Risk Index has documented several climate change events with their devastations in terms of lives lost and economic cost. This study aims to link the climate change and renewable energy with the social progress of extreme climate affected countries.

This research used the top 50 most climate-affected countries of the decade and estimated the impact of climate risk on social progress with moderation effects of renewable energy and technology. Several competing panel data models such as quantile regression, bootstrap quantile regression and feasible generalized least square are used to generate robust estimates.

The results confirm that climate hazards obstruct socioeconomic progress, but renewable energy and technology can help to mitigate the repercussion. Moreover, improved institutions enhance the social progress of nations.

Government should improve the institutional quality that enhances their performance in terms of Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law and Control of Corruption to increase social progress. In addition, society should use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels to avoid environmental degradation and health hazards. Innovation and technology also play an important role in social progress and living standards, so there should be free hand to private business research and development, encouraging research institutes and universities to come forward for innovation and research.

The ultimate goal of all human struggle is to have progress that facilitates human beings to uplift their living standard. One of the best measures that can tell us about a nation’s progress is Social Progress Index (SPI), and one of many factors that can abruptly change it is the climate; so this study is an attempt to link the relationship among these variables and also discuss the situation where the impact of climate can be reduced.

Although social progress is an important concept of today’s economics discussion, relatively few studies are using the SPI to measure social well-being. Similarly, there is consensus about the impact of climate on people, government and crops but relatively less study about its overall impact on social progress, so this study attempts to fill the gap about the relationship between social progress and climate change.

The main contribution of this study is the solution for the impact of climate risk. Climate risk is not in human control, and we cannot eliminate it, but we can reduce the negative impacts of climate change. Moderator impact of renewable energy decreases the negative impact of climate change, so there is a need to use more renewable energy to mitigate the bad consequences of climate on social progress. Another moderator is technology; using technology will also mitigate the negative consequences of the climate, so there is a need to facilitate technological advancement.

Although the Social Progress Index offers a thorough overview of the top-ranked countries with a highly developed social performance, it assigns the same weight to all component scores, implying that each component has identical and independent contribution to the SPI. By removing these flawed assumptions, the purpose of this paper is to examine the causal relationships among component scores and identify the critical components for reform priorities.

The authors propose an alternative approach to exploring the causal relationships and prioritizing the underlying components of the SPI. The four-step methodology comprises cluster analysis, data mining, partial least square path modeling, and importance-performance matrix analysis.

The authors find evidence of causal interrelations between the 12 components of the SPI. To accelerate social progress, the authors suggest that policy makers should allocate resources in order of priority to personal freedom and choice, personal rights, access to advanced education, water and sanitation, access to information and communications, tolerance and inclusion, personal safety, shelter, ecosystem sustainability, nutrition and basic medical care, health and wellness, and, finally, access to basic knowledge.

Policy makers in government, business, and civil society should become aware of causal relationships among the 12 components of the SPI and select an appropriate methodology to prioritize areas where social improvement is most needed.

Allowing for unequal weighting and causal relationships between component scores of the SPI, the authors’ methodology is the first attempt to offer a concrete way to identify which areas of social progress should constitute priorities for policy reforms.

This study aims to evaluate the competitiveness of nations and seeks to answer the following research question: how does the competitiveness of nations include improvements in the quality of life, thus influencing and contributing to social progress in both social and economic indices?

This paper collected secondary data from the World Economic Forum and the socioeconomic dimensions of the Social Progress Imperative Index and considered the dimensions of these indices, which were demonstrated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The main focus was on the documentary analysis that was carried out to explain the realities of 121 countries from 2014 to 2017 as taken from these indices, considering the 10 countries at the top and bottom.

This study showed the use of new measures for the performance of nations that are less dependent on economics and focus more on social development, which may be a trend for the future of nations, and produce a more holistic view for the study. “Innovation” is the factor with the weakest relationship with social progress, which is justified by a weaker relationship with one of the subcategories, “basic human needs”, when analyzed in isolation. However, when the authors analyze the best and worst nations, the authors observe that economic factors are still prevalent, with the “institutions” and “infrastructure” factors being effective for improving competitiveness and the quality of life.

The findings represent a new, emerging configuration in country performance, but the study has its limitations, such as the use of only two pooled variables and the fact that it does not correlate their dimensions or variables.

This study can represents an expansion logic for measuring the performance of countries considering social factors. The main contributions of this study are its statistical evidence and documentary analysis of the relationship between economic and social variables. The main contribution of this paper is to show that over time (2014–2017) economic factors, as measured by the competitiveness index of nations, relate to aspects of social welfare, as measured by the social progress index.

Contemporary sociologists implicitly assume or explicitly state that classical social theorists shared the Enlightenment’s optimistic vision that society would become more rational, free, ethical, and just overtime. I reexamine the primary works that laid the foundation for sociology and resituate them in their neo-Romantic origins.

Close readings of formative texts are provided to revisit modernist critiques of social progress in turn of the century sociology. The works of Ferdinand Tönnies, Thorstein Veblen, Emile Durkheim, Georg Simmel, and Max Weber exemplify this tradition.

Insights from social theory written during and around the neo-Romantic period mirrored the Zeitgeist, a time fascinated with irrationality, moral decay, unconsciousness, decadence, degeneration, cynicism, historical decline, and pessimism. However, classical sociology’s pessimism should not be interpreted as anti-modern. Rather, it contributed to the Enlightenment’s maturation.

Contemporary sociologists should recover the spirit of classical sociology’s gloomy extension of the modern project and bring societal processes to consciousness through human reason, untainted by the fable of progress. Without rational grounds for optimism, the most honest and sincere way to preserve the hope for alternatives and emancipation is through the continuation and advancement of the pessimistic tradition. To formulate new disillusioned theories of society, sociology ought to draw from its ignored tragic legacy.

Rather than accept accounts of classical sociologists as believers in progress, the tradition reveals a world of increasing disenchantment, atomization, anomie, alienation, confusion, quarrel, rationalization devoid of value, and unhappiness. Providing society thoughtful, systematic accounts of its own estrangement advances the project of modernity.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

In Chapter 1, we critically reviewed the foundations of the free enterprise capital system (FECS), which has been successful primarily because of its wealth and asset accumulation potentiality and actuality. In this chapter, we critically argue that this capacity has been grounded upon the profit maximization (PM) theories, models, and paradigms of FECS. The intent of this chapter is not anti-PM. The PM models of FECS have worked and performed well for more than 200 years of the economic history of the United States and other developed countries, and this phenomenon is celebrated and featured as “market performativity.” However, market performativity has not truly benefitted the poor and the marginalized; on the contrary, market performativity has wittingly or unwittingly created gaping inequalities of wealth, income, opportunity, and prosperity. Critical thinking does not combat PM but challenges it with alternative models of profit sharing that promote social wealth, social welfare, social progress, and opportunity for all, which we explore here. Economic development without social progress breeds economic inequality and social injustice. Economic development alone is not enough; we should create a new paradigm in which economic development is the servant of social progress, not vice versa. Such a paradigm shift involves integrating the creativity and innovativity of market performativity and the goals and drives of social performativity together with PM, that is, from market performativity to social performativity.

Thus far, we have treated critical thinking descriptively and analytically in previous chapters. In this, the epilogue, as a closing chapter, we intend to consider critical thinking normatively – what it should be, ideally and holistically. We do this in four stages. First, recapitulating the essential concepts, theories, and paradigms of social welfare, social well-being, and social progress, we suggest that critical thinking should ultimately understand and further social progress and social well-being for all humanity. Second, we submit that the great wealth of corporate and free-market capitalism should – as spiritual capital – benefit all, especially the poor and the marginalized. Third, in order to realize the first two objectives, we posit that critical thinking should be repositioned as the art of aesthetic reasoning and aesthetic rationality such that, fourth, it is best realized within the framework of social mindfulness. We discuss major theories grounding these four parts and reflect on their managerial implications and propose future directions for critical thinking research and development.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how a multinational enterprise (MNE) makes sense of the ‘wicked problem’ of corporate social responsibility (CSR).

We analyse the single case of an acknowledged leader in CSR, Unilever. We undertake an interpretive textual analysis of how Unilever has accounted for its progress towards greater social and environmental responsibility in its annual social and environmental reports published between 2000 and 2012.

We identify enduring themes as well as what has changed in this 12-year period. We conclude that while Unilever has made definite progress, becoming more confident and ambitious in its plans and achievements, it potentially runs the risk of reducing CSR to a ‘tame problem’ that can be solved through technical solutions that offer win-win solutions and do not challenge the economic theory of the firm.

We show the value of using the perspective of ‘wicked problems’ to understand the complexity of the CSR challenge facing the MNE.

We suggest that the current approach of measuring CSR progress has limitations and potentially negative side effects.

Our chapter offers a novel conceptualisation of CSR, as well as empirical evidence of CSR as a process of corporate sensemaking in the face of ‘wicked problems’.