Search results

Multinational corporations (MNCs) utilize corporate social responsibility (CSR) to govern their global economic activities. Yet CSR adoption is influenced by institutional diversity of both home and host countries. This article uses neoinstitutional and comparative capitalism theories to understand how CSR is shaped by different forms of stakeholder salience in diverse institutional contexts. Using data on labor rights CSR adoption by 629 European MNCs, our empirical results indicate that CSR complements institutionalized stakeholder power in home countries, but substitutes for its absence in host countries. Hence, CSR may paradoxically legitimate MNC behavior given both the presence and absence of stakeholder rights.

This article discusses the appeal of human rights as a normative basis for stakeholder claims in the context of international business. This appeal to human rights has proven to be an effective way to legitimize (in the sociological sense) the claims of stakeholders due to their proclaimed universal validity and the media interest in stories about human right violations. A problem for corporations that have to deal with claims based on human rights is that there seems to be little room to weigh these claims against the corporation’s interest and other stakeholder claims, since human rights are believed to override self‐interest. Furthermore, stakeholder theory as it stands, does not provide for a criterion to weigh human rights claims against the claims of (other) stakeholders. Following recent versions of stakeholder theory, claims based solely on human rights do not even qualify some person or group as a stakeholder. So the position of human rights‐based claims within organizational ethics remains unclear in stakeholder theory. The question this article tries to answer, is whether a corporation has a moral obligation to fulfil claims that are based solely on human rights and how this relates to the obligations a firm has to its stakeholders.

We argue that the stakeholder and CSR literature can benefit from more systematic thinking about ownership. We discuss general notions of ownership in the economics and legal literature and the entrepreneurial notion of ownership we have developed in prior work. On this basis, we argue that stakeholder theory needs to deal more systematically with ownership as an economic function that can be exercised with greater or lesser ability, may be complementary to other economic functions, and works better when assigned to homogeneous groups. Some stakeholder groups are likely to lack what we call “ownership competence,” even if they have made relationship-specific investments, in part because of a diversity of interests. We also discuss CSR from the perspective of ownership and support Friedman’s original position, but with a twist. The point of Friedman’s paper is not that firms “should” maximize profits, but that managerial pursuit of “socially responsible” activities in a discretionary way imposes costs on owners. We suggest this problem is exacerbated with entrepreneurial managers who can devise new ways to prop up their self-interested actions with new creative CSR initiatives.

Rights and duties are involved in every area of business and markets, and society and governments. Most often, rights and duties involve serious ethical and moral issues of conflict. A good theory of the ethics of rights and duties, obligations, and responsibilities will empower us to understand the impact of our actions on various stakeholders. Additionally, a deep understanding of rights and duties could help us to analyze better the impact of our executive actions on various stakeholders and, in particular, to fathom the damaging effects of rights and duties violated by the man-made current financial crisis when seen from an ethical and moral point of view. Our coverage on the ethics of corporate rights and duties will comprise of two parts: Part 1: The Nature of Corporate Business Rights and Duties, and Part 2: Respecting Corporate Rights and Duties. The chapter will feature Newcomb Wellesley Hohfeld’s framework of legal interests such as claims, privileges, power, and immunity and its various applications to contemporary market and corporate executive situations. We illustrate the theory of rights and duties using several cases from the current turbulent markets.

Stakeholder capitalism has been proposed as an alternative way of thinking about business purpose and value creation. However, stakeholder capitalism can only work as an alternative model of business if all stakeholders and their interests are visible to and taken seriously by managers. The purpose of this paper is to untangle the challenges that invisible, marginalized and powerless stakeholders pose for theorizing about stakeholder capitalism.

This paper is conceptual. The authors first briefly outline the promise of stakeholder capitalism for addressing pressing questions about value creation and stakeholder welfare. The authors then conceptualize stakeholder invisibility as the outcome of a particular stakeholder being both powerless and marginal through the prism of moral intensity theory and one of its elements: proximity. This study discusses the ways in which managers can make invisible stakeholders more visible in their decision-making.

For managers truly to manage for stakeholders, as anticipated by stakeholder capitalism, all stakeholders and stakeholder interests must be visible to them. This study analyzes why sometimes they are not, how they can be made more visible and why stakeholder visibility matters for stakeholder capitalism. This study proffers three principles for business practice: ethical commitments to reduce stakeholder invisibility, analyses of business strategies to surface the contributions of marginalized and invisible stakeholders and taking rights seriously.

This study provides a new perspective on stakeholder capitalism by linking the challenge in operationalizing it to the problems of stakeholder invisibility and marginality.

The purpose of this paper is to present a theoretical model for systematizing human rights norms to facilitate their integration into global business decision making.

The paper relates a natural law conception of human rights to global corporate governance.

The paper shows that natural law theory gives a basis for integrating human rights into global governance while also making a business case for taking human rights seriously.

The paper offers a theoretical framework related to jurisprudence and introduces the concept of reputational capital as an intangible asset that is built up by a firm's proactive advancement of human rights.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to examine to what extent the companies could adapt the corporate governance principles of the Capital Markets Board (CMB) to their own structures in terms of stakeholder relations; and second, to raise awareness of the deficiencies related to these relations.

The companies listed in ISE‐50 Index in the fourth quarter of 2010 were examined. The corporate governance principles compliance reports, activity reports and articles of associations of the companies that should be issued were examined to obtain the data. The research findings have been studied under five subtitles: company policies relating to stakeholders; promoting the participation of stakeholders in the management; human resources policies; relations with the customers and suppliers; ethical rules and social responsibility.

It is found that the companies have not taken any action for the representation of the employees in the board of directors. Also, it is seen that most of the companies, when any interest group is privileged, do not make the confidential business information obtained due to such privilege used so as to violate the equal opportunity principle. There are difficulties in paying attention to the confidentiality of the confidential business information related to the customers and suppliers.

The findings of this study can indicate that, effective handling of applications reflecting the perception related with the stakeholders of the corporate governance could only be probable if CMB corporate governance principles “practice and specify what you do not practice” have become compulsory.

The paper provides useful information on the relationships of the companies listed in the ISE‐50 Index with stakeholders.

This commentary questions commonly held assumptions about corporate social responsibility (CSR). It discusses the morality of altruistic CSR – philanthropic CSR activities that are not necessarily beneficial to the firm’s financial position. Evaluating altruistic CSR from all major ethical perspectives – utilitarianism, rights, justice and care – leads to the conclusion that, for publicly held corporations, such activity is immoral. This is because altruistic CSR violates shareholder property rights, unjustly seizing stockholder wealth, and it bestows benefits for the general welfare at the expense of those for whom the firm should care in close relationships. The paper also determines that what are often considered mandatory ethical and social corporate duties are actually optional activities that should only be undertaken when it appears that they can enhance the value of the firm, i.e. when they are used as strategic CSR. However, using ideas taken from secular and Judaeo‐Christian authors on the meaning of work, the article also concludes that altruistic activities are appropriate and commendable for private firms and individuals. It offers suggestions for practitioners of CSR and for future academic research.

The task of this paper is to critique the ethics of an university entrepreneurship curriculum. For what purpose is entrepreneurship curriculum designed? Who decides what is to be included in an entrepreneurship curriculum? Ethics has a plurality and implies moral judgment informed by any individual’s values. In applying entrepreneurship education the rationale and justification of what is offered and why should be clear. The paper provides a synthesis conducted on an extant literature review on the ethics of an entrepreneurship curriculum, entrepreneurship education stakeholders, and stakeholder rights and obligations. An ethics enquiry framework is concluded that entrepreneurship education curriculum designers can apply to surface the assumptions underpinning the curriculum and assist educators to be clear and explicit about the intent and ambitions for an entrepreneurship education curriculum design. While this paper develops a framework, it has yet to be tested. Further research can examine specific sets of stakeholder expectations, variations in obligations among regulatory or institutional settings, explicitly examine the range of effects of an entrepreneurship curriculum, and report the usability and practical relevance of such an evaluative framework. Ethics in entrepreneurship education is under-researched and more particularly the ethics of the entrepreneurship curriculum appears to have rarely been questioned. Entrepreneurship education lays the foundation for the future actions of those who shape and socially structure entrepreneurship. Therefore, as educators, there is a greater responsibility for ensuring that the education provided meets certain expectations of and obligations to various stakeholder groups.

The purpose of this paper is to examine perceptions about the nature and role of corporate governance in Uganda, with the emphasis on accountability within a stakeholder framework.

The study employs interviews and questionnaires to gauge the views of key players in Uganda about the way the nation's firms are governed, in the context of the stakeholder notion and the need for corporate accountability.

The results suggest that the research participants take a broad view of the corporate governance concept, with recognition of a wide range of stakeholders evident. However, issues relating to corruption and the de‐facto legal framework mean that practices depart markedly from any reasonable understanding of what might represent “best‐practice”.

The results suggest that there is a gap between the theory and practice of corporate governance in Uganda, and regulators need to address this issue and deal with the endemic corruption and extant legal weaknesses that have given rise to this situation.

This is one of the first studies to explicitly examine perceptions about governance standards within an accountability framework in a developing nation.