Search results

Despite the recognized importance of entrepreneurship for organizational wealth creation, research has devoted minimal attention to investigating this area. This study contributes to a better understanding of the relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and wealth creation by developing and testing a normative model, which clarifies the nature of the influences of corporate entrepreneurship and its environmental and organizational antecedents on organizational performance. The findings of structural equation modeling, based on mail survey data from 477 Slovenian firms, demonstrate that corporate entrepreneurship and some its contingencies make a difference in organizational wealth creation, growth and profitability.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of employee ownership (EO) on the creation of shareholders’ wealth in companies in Cameroon.

The methodological approach adopted is hypothetical-deductive. The sample includes 89 companies, of which 31 practiced EO policy for at least ten years. Information used come from secondary data collected over the period 2008–2013 at the National Statistical Institute of Cameroon. These data were analyzed through a time series cross-sectional regression, corrected for any latent heteroskedasticity and serial auto-correlation.

The paper finds that the average level for participation of employee in the capital is 7.4 percent and the average wealth creation of shareholders is 26 percent of invested equity. However, this average rate of creation of shareholders’ wealth is higher in companies with EO (45 percent) than in conventional firms (16 percent). For the results of model estimates, the percentage of capital held by employees affect positively and significantly at 1 percent the return on equity. This study concludes that EO is a lever for creation of shareholders’ wealth in companies in Cameroon.

Findings of this research can serve as framework for reflection by politicians, managers and business leaders as they will have a strategic management tool capable of improving the social climate in companies and also promoting shareholders’ wealth creation. It is a formula that would allow them combining economic and social realities of organizations.

No similar review has been done before in Africa in general and Cameroon in particular. Study was carried out in a context where financial market is not developed.

The privatization of State Owned Enterprises (SOE) has significant implications for SOE stakeholders. However, the effects on stakeholders will vary depending on characteristics of the privatization process and the structure of the SOE. This paper identifies privatization process characteristics of wealth creation and wealth distribution, and describes SOE structures on a continuum between government corporation and government agency. The privatization effectiveness for stakeholders is discussed and examples provided for each classification of privatization.

Wealth does not exist in infinite volume, it has to be created. The creation of new wealth which is necessary to support growing social expectations is determined by the ability to create new market values in the form of a new knowledge that significantly alters the patterns of expectations. The prevailing mindset, however, currently favours a stable formula for maintaining existing market values. Provides a framework for wealth creation by defining knowledge in a way that encompasses its origins through to the technologies which exploit it in the form of new market values.

Suggests that in many companies that have adopted value‐based management, there is a need to shift the focus of management attention from the measurement of value, to the creation of wealth. Argues that shareholder wealth creation is a creative endeavour on the part of the management and employees of a business – and that wealth will only be created for shareholders if management delivers financial performance that exceeds market expectations. This requires the successful implementation of higher value strategies developed from new ideas – not simply the adoption of value‐based measurement and incentive systems.

One of the problems we face in the transition from an industrial society to a global knowledge economy is the need for a new breed of leaders and a new understanding of leadership. Creativity in organizations is traditionally considered to be the domain of the R&D department, and design and marketing functions. The consequences of this way of thinking are that creativity, innovation and the implementation of innovation have not been a part of everyday life throughout an organization, but rather things that are the responsibility of a few people often located in departments far away from the “front line.” It is the front line that is in daily contact with users/customers, and which, in the knowledge society, will become increasingly important. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how we can develop a new type of leadership in the knowledge economy. The authors suggest that the necessary conditions for this new type of leadership, which is refered to here as “innovation leadership”, are developed in a holistic model which includes the following elements: entrepreneurial action, innovative leadership, creative energy fields within the organization, high‐tech wealth creation and innovation as a business process.

The authors' perspective here is that of a holistic integrated model where leadership and administration coordinate and balance each other, promoting creativity, innovation, productivity and change. The methodology used is conceptual research, where an analytical model is discussed.

For the established policy in enterprises and other social systems it is important to open up to fields of contagion, cutting down parts of the forest and allowing the principle of the order of succession to reign freely. In established enterprises it is important to: uncover creative energy fields; identify innovation leaders; spread contagion by cutting down areas of the forest where you want the principle of the order of succession to apply; and ensure that you have active spreaders of contagious new creative energy fields in the enterprise.

If one freely interprets Hamel, then in order to promote the development of relational competence, 80 percent of the resources involved in high‐tech wealth creation should be allocated to innovation culture, and 20 percent to performance culture. Hamel says that innovation culture is constituted by “passion, creativity, initiative”. The most important aspect of innovation culture is not so much developing many new ideas and patents, but rather converting these ideas to profit for the company; the motto “from idea to invoice” springs to mind here. However, in most companies it is perhaps the performance culture rather than the innovation culture that is given priority.

The social implications can be stated by citing Hamel, who outlines five important lessons that need to be followed: go to the root of any problem; build what is new on new ground; commit to revolutionary goals, but reach the goals by taking small steps; evaluate continuously, but do not paralyse the system with analysis and quarterly results; and be persevering.

To the authors' knowledge, few authors (if any), have related systemic thinking (cybernetics) to the new leaders we need in the global economy.

Corporate social responsibility is one of the earliest and key conceptions in the academic study of business and society relations. This article examines the future of corporate social responsibility. Bowen's (1953) key question concerned whether the interests of business and society merge in the long ran. That question is assessed in the present and future contexts. There seem to be distinctly anti‐responsibility trends in recent academic literature and managerial views concerning best practices. These trends raise significant doubts about the future status of corporate social responsibility theory and practice. The vital change is that a leitmotif of wealth creation progressively dominates the managerial conception of responsibility. The article provides a developmental history of the corporate social responsibility notion from the Progressive Era forward to the corporate social performance framework and Carroll's pyramid of corporate social responsibilities. There are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices. The article examines and assesses each alternative. The article then assesses the prospects for business responsibility in a global context. Two fundamentals of social responsibility remain: (1) the prevailing psychology of the manager; and (2) the normative framework for addressing how that psychology should be shaped. Implications for practice and scholarship are considered.

The socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics reflects the characteristics of ushering into a new era, and the research object thereof shifts to productive forces. Emancipating and developing productive forces and achieving common prosperity become the main theme. Wealth supersedes value as the fundamental category of economic analysis.

The theoretical system of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics cannot proceed from transcendental theories but is problem-oriented. Leading problems involve development stages and research-level problems.

The economic operation analysis is subject to the goal of optimal allocation of resources with micro-level analysis focused on efficiency and macro-level analysis focused on economic growth and macroeconomic stability also known as economic security. The economic development analysis explores the laws of development and related development concepts in compliance with laws of productive forces. The new development concepts i.e. the innovative coordinated green open and shared development drive the innovation of development theory in political economy.

Accordingly, the political economy cannot study the system only, but also needs to study the problems of economic operation and economic development. Therefore, the theoretical system of the political economy tends to encompass three major parts, namely economic system, economic operation and economic development (including foreign economy). The basic economic system analysis needs to understand the relationship between public ownership and non-public ownership, between distribution according to work and factor payments, and between socialism and market economy from the perspective of coexistence theory, thus transforming institutional advantage into governance advantage.

What differentiates US capitalism from all other forms of industrial capitalism is its historical focus on both the creation of wealth (entrepreneurship) and the reconstitution of wealth (philanthropy). Philanthropy is part of the implicit social contract that continuously nurtures and revitalizes economic prosperity. Much of the new wealth created historically has been given back to the community, to build up the great social institutions that have a positive feedback on future economic growth. This entrepreneurship‐philanthropy nexus has not been fully explored by either economists or the general public. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that US philanthropists – especially those who have made their own fortunes – create foundations that, in turn, contribute to greater and more widespread economic prosperity through knowledge creation. If we do not analyze philanthropy we can understand neither how economic development occurred nor what accounts for US economic dominance.

The purpose of this research is to study the impact of divestitures on shareholder wealth. This study covers selloffs of publicly traded companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (DACH region) during the period 2002–2018. It aims to understand the overall effect of selloffs on shareholder wealth as well as the impact of important influencing factors.

This study is part of capital market studies which investigate shareholder wealth effects (abnormal returns) using event study methodology. To determine the significance of abnormal returns, a standardized cross-sectional test as suggested by Boehmer et al. (1991) was applied. The sample consists of 393 selloffs of publicly traded companies with a deal value of at least EUR 10m.

The findings confirm the overall positive impact of selloffs on shareholder wealth. The average abnormal return on the announcement day of the sample companies amounts to 1.33%. The type of buyer, the relative size of the transaction as well as the financial situation of the seller in particular seem to influence abnormal returns positively.

This study investigates shareholder wealth creation through selloffs in the DACH region, a largely neglected region in divestiture research, but now very relevant due to increasing pressure of active foreign investors. Sophisticated statistical methods were used to generate robust findings, which are in line with the results of similar studies for the US and the UK.