Search results

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are often neglected in the context of business and society theory building. The purpose of this article is to build a model of why SMEs address social issues by integrating internal and external drivers and barriers to social performance (SP).

Using thematic analysis, barriers and drivers to SME social performance are clustered along key stakeholders and presented in a theoretical model. The analysis dates from 1973 until 2006 and is grounded in an extensive literature review that represents a total of 83 countries. It includes academic and practitioner accounts stemming from theoretical and empirical work, as well as conference proceedings. A total of 80 drivers and 96 barriers to SME high social performance are identified.

This paper develops an SME four‐cell ideal type of social issues management (SIM) response typology based on drivers and barriers of social performance.

The importance of understanding barriers and drivers to social responsibility (SR) of SIM for stakeholder theory, policy makers, and practitioners is discussed, concluding with implications for further SME‐SR research.

The four‐cell typology considers the theoretical claims of stakeholder theory within the context of SMEs and proposes a heteronomy of stakeholder salience.

The principal aim of this research is to provide an in‐depth analysis of existing practices of corporate governance in mature markets and to compare and contrast these approaches with CG and CSR practices in emerging markets, given the growing influence of EMs on the global economy.

The methodology employed in the study is to survey the main theoretical approaches for understanding and CG in relation to mature markets and EMs.

The paper makes a small but important contribution to theory building by modifying and expanding the conceptual framework put forward by Weimer, Pape, Gedjlovic, and Shapiro to make a distinction between systems of corporate governance and particularly the “taxonomy of systems of corporate governance”. This is achieved by identifying an additional set of key variables specifically relevant to EMs as a group of countries. The main finding of the paper is that there is no comprehensive, “one size fits all” global corporate governance or CSR system, based on western codes and regulations that can be implemented in emerging markets.

It is proposed that alternative corporate governance systems that reflect the institutional realities of emerging economy settings must be taken into account. The recognition of such alternative standards and codes in the way businesses are organized is original and valuable in practical as well as in social terms for both western investors and EMs. The paper is heretic in that it questions conventional wisdom, which views the OECD‐prescribed best governance practices as applicable to EMs.