Search results

One way of looking at the association between ethics and stakeholder theory – of examining the idea that stakeholder theory has a strong moral foundation – is to consider how the stakeholder approach might in fact be directly driven by and guided by the moral obligations of business. An alternative perspective we offer is that stakeholder theory only indirectly derives from the moral obligations of business, with business purpose serving as a mediating factor. We work through the fairly straightforward logic behind that alternative perspective in this chapter. We argue that it is a better way to think about the association between ethics and stakeholder theory, particularly because it allows for a theoretical and practical distinction between corporate social responsibility and stakeholder theory. Stakeholder theory can thereby continue developing as a theory of strategic management, even as it brings morals to the fore in ways that other approaches to strategic management do not.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).

The purpose of this paper is to outline a path for entrepreneurial universities to embrace their purpose as custodians of society and to hardwire it institutionally.

The paper is conceptual in its approach, drawing on practical and theoretical insights in the fields of responsible leadership, business sustainability and transformational change. The resulting Circle Model offers a developmental perspective connecting individual and organizational development in service of society.

A key finding lies in expanding the current understanding of an entrepreneurial university beyond its organizational effectiveness to become a true custodian of society in the way it educate, researches and lives this intended purpose. The model offers a next conceptual step for the 50+20 vision (Muff et al., 2013) which had outlined a radical new role for business schools.

More research is required to understand how not only the educational and research strategies but also the organizational structure can be transformed to serve a given purpose.

Concrete insights and examples of the developmental perspective of the model illustrate the opportunities for educating responsible leaders, for consulting business organizations to serve the common good, and for walking the talk by hardwiring a purpose-driven organization.

The originality of the paper lies in the introduction of the idea of a common space of sustainability and responsibility as a foundation to reorient education and research of an entrepreneurial business school and hardwire its organizational structure truly around purpose.

1.1 What Are Accounts For? Overview The purpose of accounts is to reveal performance in the conduct of a business or other activity concerned with use of economic resources (e.g. a club). It is thus a matter of stewardship. Although, like economics, it is necessary in accounting to use money as a measure of performance, it is concerned with the individual organisation rather than with economic phenomena as a whole.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.

In this paper, we propose a new conceptualization of the purpose of the corporation in relation to its activities. This conceptualization builds upon the existing distinction between the corporation as a legal vehicle and the enterprise as an economic organization, but renews the approach of the enterprise. We argue that the enterprise is a peculiar historical form of economic organization that emerged in the late nineteenth century to not only produce but also create new goods and technologies. This creative purpose involved a new type of managerial authority, not grounded in corporate law, but institutionalized in other branches of law, such as labor law. The legitimacy of the managers relied on the premise that the enterprise’s creative power would be harnessed for collective progress. However, this new view of the enterprise was insufficiently conceptualized in the twentieth century and continued to be governed by standard corporate law. This allowed managers to be seen as agents of shareholders, and the purpose of collective progress to be replaced by the interests of shareholders. Our analysis has important implications for the purpose of the corporation. As enterprises become more innovative and impactful, we argue that they can no longer be governed by traditional corporate law. If the corporation remains the legal cloth for business activities, then its purpose must consider the nature and impacts of these activities. We therefore interpret the new legal forms of purpose-driven corporation as an appropriate framework to restore the enterprise and a collective purpose within corporate law.

The contemporary dialog surrounding social and environmental crises has strengthened the call for a reconsideration of the capitalist economic system, prompting a reimagining of businesses’ societal roles. This chapter explores the shifting terrain of corporate purpose as a driving force for positive societal change, challenging the traditional shareholder primacy doctrine.

After examining influential theoretical frameworks shaping the discourse on corporate purpose, this research unveils the results of an empirical investigation inspired by the 2019 American Business Roundtable’s (BRT) statement on corporate purpose, where numerous prominent American CEOs advocated for a shift toward a stakeholder-oriented approach. In our exercise, the authors employ semantic and cognitive linguistic analyses to measure the coherence between the language in the BRT statement and the content of sustainability reports. This approach aims to offer insights into the alignment or divergence between corporate declarations and actual practices concerning corporate purpose.

Empirical findings reveal that corporations emphasizing their purpose in sustainability reports using language resembling that of the BRT statement tend to demonstrate lower implementation scores. Conversely, implementors lean toward using language in sustainability reports that diverges from the BRT statement. These findings suggest a potential disconnection between stated purpose and actual implementation in companies emphasizing corporate purpose in their reports.

The study research contributes theoretical insights by exploring how corporations can incorporate purpose-driven practices to promote sustainable growth and societal well-being. It underscores the potential for businesses to play a pivotal role in reshaping the economic landscape and advocates for ongoing research in humanistic management models.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a successful model on how to prepare business students to be successful in a new, post-pandemic world that faces enormous social challenges.

The article discusses the current business and social movements that suggest the relevance of social entrepreneurship and explain the pedagogical model developed at the Center for Nonprofits at Sacred Heart University.

The article suggests how this pedagogical model may provide students with the skills, attitudes and values required for successful social entrepreneurship processes.

The article presents the current picture which will undoubtedly change over time. Thus the context is time constrained. The article presents one model to develop leaders’ skills. There are many other models and experiences that should be considered and evaluated.

The case explains a key initiative that can help universities improve pedagogical tools on building students' social entrepreneurship skills and extend this impact to their success in the post-pandemic environment and impact on surrounding communities.

There is a growing need for business leaders to have sophisticated business skills and purpose beyond financial profit. The article looks at the dual roles of social entrepreneurs as a model for the leaders and the Nonprofit Center at Sacred Heart University to develop the skills of the future leaders.

The article presents a new vision of the skills necessary for a leader in today's environment. It draws from the literature on social entrepreneurship. It also presents one model that has been successful for 15 years and the pedagogical underpinnings of that model.