Search results

Purpose – This chapter engages critically with the ideas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and irresponsibility (CSI) in order to examine their utility for the purposes of realizing more socially just and environmentally sustainable social and economic practices.

Methodology/approach – The chapter develops Marx's understanding of the twin pressures of class struggle and inter-capitalist competition in setting the limits of agency for corporate actors. It is thus theoretical and discursive in nature.

Findings – The findings of the chapter suggest that the scope for corporate agency in relation to responsibility/irresponsibility is severely limited by inter-capitalist competition and capitalist social relations. It therefore argues that those interested in social justice and environmental sustainability should focus on these structural pressures rather than theorizing corporate agency.

Social implications – The research suggests that the focus of academic and government attention should be on resolving the contradictions and exploitative social relations inherent in capitalism. Without this emphasis activism, corporate agency and government action will not eradicate the types of problem that advocates of CSR/CSI are concerned about.

Originality/value of paper – The value of the paper is that it contests and engages critically with the utility of the notion of CSR and the emergent concept of CSI. It asks proponents of these concepts to think seriously about the structural pressures and constraints within which business and policy makers act.

Over the last decades, the social sciences have become increasingly concerned with the role of the state and the politics of institutional restructuring. Within mainstream political science this has led to the development of a “state-centered” research program that emphasizes the autonomy of institutions. Marxist theory, however, has continued to adhere to a “society-centered” perspective, seeking to combine an ability to account for institutional change with the analysis of more structural social and economic forces. After some introductory comments that frame the problematic within which the paper is situated (Section 1), I discuss in Section 2 three of the most important recent Marxist attempts to construe the relation between socio-economic imperatives and political institutions. My argument is that Marxists’ attempts to relativize the autonomy of state institutions are too often still based on the postulation of an unexplained structural moment. This leaves them vulnerable to institutionalist claims concerning the autonomous nature of institutions. Section 3 proposes a different way of thinking the role of institutions in capitalist society. This approach breaks with a causalist, structuralist mode of explanation and relies on a more hermeneutic understanding of the role of institutions. I will shift the problematic to the relation between institutions and agency, arguing for a more pragmatist understanding of the role of institutions and an agency-based understanding of the formation of socio-economic imperatives. Section 4 concludes with some thoughts on the prospects held out, as well as the challenges faced, by the approach proposed in this paper.

This article traces the history of a continuous tradition of Marxian stage theory from the beginning of the twentieth century until the present day. The resolution of the first crisis of Marxism was found in the work of Hilferding on finance capital, Bukharin on the world economy and Lenin on imperialism as a new stage of capitalism. Hilferding's, Bukarin's and Lenin's analysis was carried into the post–World War II era through the work of Sweezy and Mandel. A second wave of Marxian stage theorizing emerged with the end of the post–World War II expansion. Mandel's long wave theory (LWT), the Social Structure of Accumulation Framework (SSAF), and the Regulation Approach (RA) analyzed the stagflationary crises as the end of a long wave of growth. This long wave was underpinned by the emergence of a postwar stage of capitalism, which was analogous to the reorganization brought about by monopoly capital at the turn of the century. These new schools were reluctant to predict the non-resolution of the current crisis, thus opening up the possibility of further stages of capitalism in the future. This elevated Lenin's theory of the highest stage to a general theory of capitalist stages. The last decade has seen a substantial convergence in the three perspectives. In general, this convergence has reaffirmed the importance of Hilferding's, Bukarin's and Lenin's (HBL's) initial contributions to the stage theoretic tradition. The article concludes with some thoughts on the necessity of stage theory for understanding of the current period of globalization.

Social class has long existed in tension with other forms of social difference such as race, gender, and sexuality, both in academic and popular debate. While Marxist-influenced class primacy perspectives gained prominence in US sociology in the 1970s, they faded from view by the 1990s, replaced by perspectives focusing on culture and institutions or on intersectional analyses of how multiple forms of social difference shape durable patterns of disempowerment and marginalization. More recently, class and capitalism have reasserted their place on the academic agenda, but continue to coexist uneasily with analyses of oppression and social difference. Here we discuss possibilities for bridging the gap between studies of class and other forms of social difference. We contend that these categories are best understood in relation to each other when situated in a larger system with its own endogenous dynamics and tendencies, namely capitalism. After providing an historical account of the fraught relationship between studies of class and other forms of social difference, we propose a theoretical model for integrating understandings of class and social difference using Wright et al.‘s concept of dynamic asymmetry. This shifts us away from discussions of which factors are most important in general toward concrete discussions of how these factors interact in particular cases and processes. We contend that class and other forms of social difference should not be studied primarily as traits embodied in individuals, but rather with respect to how these differences are organized in relation to each other within a framework shaped by the dynamics of capitalist development.

This paper aims to examine the current financial crisis, suggesting that most analyses have attributed the crisis to a lack of business ethics, the rise of greed and lax regulation. Prescriptions offered to address this crisis draw accordingly on the need for greater regulation of market behaviour, business practices and boardroom pay. Whilst these reforms are necessary, they fail to recognise that such business practices have their roots in an extreme political and economic ideology – neoliberal market fundamentalism. This paper seeks to suggests that a greater appreciation of the nexus between politics, philosophy and economics is critical in order to develop a different practice. As such, the author provides a socio‐historical and political context for understanding the present crisis before offering a critique and reform of the business educational agenda. The author argues that such a context would engender greater understanding of business practices and systems for both students and practitioners and would go some way in enabling them to fashion a more critical reflexive and engaged practice.

The paper draws on a critical‐historical review of the literature on the crisis. In so doing, the paper opens up the analysis to philosophical and political approaches to understanding financial crises.

The paper finds that explanations for the crisis can be found through a critical appreciation of philosophical and political texts. This finding also suggests that current business and management education and practices can benefit from an incorporation of these historical strands of thought.

In drawing on various strands in philosophy, politics, economics and sociology, the paper finds that a singular account for the crisis is flawed. The paper also finds that a richer and deeper appreciation of the crisis can be found through a critical‐historical positioning of the crisis. This necessitates an understanding of politics and philosophy in business practices and education.

In explaining the crisis, the paper suggests that many of the current financial “innovations” are problematic and a more critical approach is needed to engage with these “new” innovations.

The paper seeks to open up new vistas for business education and practices. Through a critical‐historical interrogation of the crisis, the paper opens up new spaces for understanding international economics and business practices. This reflexivity is often missing in international business studies and most management practices.

Purpose – This chapter introduces this volume's topics, purpose and key themes.

Methodology/approach – This chapter reviews literature and chapters and offers conceptual development.

Findings – The difficulties of CSR in theory and practice are mainly due to its incomplete conceptualisation because its inseparable counterpart CSI has been eventually neglected or ignored in the CSR theorising process. The CSI concept is as equally important as CSR. CSI offers a theoretical platform to avoid the vagueness, ambiguity, arbitrariness and mysticism of CSR. CSI deserves to be a serious subject of inquiry and demands more scholarly attention.

Practical/social implications – With the aid of the CSI concept, CSR becomes more realistic and effective, as it is now more focused, practical and operational. While CSI is clear-cut, CSR is clearly meant, at the very least, to do well by undoing CSI. It is easier to promote CSR by addressing CSI first. The concept of CSI may allow everyone, including business practitioners, to concentrate on resolving the most important and urgent issues of public concern. It also encourages people to address the root causes of CSI problems in a systematic way. Doing so undoubtedly expands and enriches the understanding of CSR.

Originality/value of chapter – The concept of CSI has been less developed in academic circles. While the contributors of this volume have made significant contributions to the understanding of CSI, this chapter adds fresh reasoning and explanations to the development of the CSI subject.

The purpose of this paper is: to explore the concept of finance shared service centres (SSCs) through an interpretive case study based on a structuration in organizational fields framework; to explore the implications for the finance function, in terms of how finance both drives change within the multi‐divisional organisation and also is affected by change; and to interpret the SSC phenomenon in the light of the Iron Cage analogy.

A structuration in organization fields approach is used to interpret influences and actions in a longitudinal case study of a finance SSC.

The SSC can be seen as an emergent strategic project. The paper argues that the new organisational form of the SSC, together with the finance function's reflexive and recursive position of driving change are influenced by changes in the economic and institutional influences in the organisational field but in a manner that is both evolutionary and nuanced. A further observation is that management accounting systems are both changed and made stable by the SSC.

The field work consists of a single case study so as to give a sufficiently deep understanding of how external and internal discourse has influenced the development of a SSC over time.

The paper argues that the unbundling and reconfiguration of support services represents more than simply a rational response to cost reduction and efficiency savings. Indeed, the more fundamental nature of change in the finance function stemming from new structures and processes of the SSC can be understood better once the SSC model has been conceptualised in the context of overall interactions within the multi‐divisional corporation and with its organisational.