Search results

This chapter considers the place of responsibility in confronting ecological sustainability and social equity problems in the food system. We present two illustrations addressing the following question: In what ways does responsibility present a way to close the metabolic rift in line with the vision of the global food sovereignty movement? First, using the example of Metro-Vancouver in Canada, we consider the ways in which urban people claim responsibility for land protection through the concept of urban agrarianism, defined as an urban ethic of care for foodlands, with an associated responsibility to exercise solidarity with those who cultivate and harvest food. Second, we discuss how deepening relational responsibility in legal and regulatory frameworks might hold the corporate food regime accountable in the Canadian context to address their role in and responsibility for mitigating an increasingly risky world, as evidenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. We argue that the responsibility of urban people to mobilise in solidarity with food movements, and against the corporate food regime in particular, will play a critical role in supporting the transition to sustainable and just food systems. This applies both to finding new ways to claim responsibility for this transition and to hold those actors that have disproportionately benefitted from the corporate food regime responsible. Such a reworking of responsibility is especially necessary as the context for food systems change becomes increasingly urbanised and risky.

Ethics is fundamentally a science of social and collective responsibility. Ethics concerns human behavior as responsible or accountable. Because of the nature of social interaction, certain members of the society will bear greater authority, and hence, greater individual and social responsibility than others. In our world, personal responsibility and social responsibility are hardly separable. Personal responsibility becomes responsibility for the world because the person and the world are inseparable. In this chapter, we use the term responsibility from a legal, ethical, moral, and spiritual (LEMS) standpoint as some promise, commitment, obligation, sanctioned by self, morals, law, or society, to do good, and if harm results, to repair harm done on another. Hence, responsibility from a moral perspective is trustworthiness and dependability of the agent in some enterprise. Its inverse is exoneration – the extent to which one is excused from commitment and repairing the harm done to others by one’s actions. We apply the theories and constructs of executive responsibility to two contemporary cases: (1) India’s Super Rich in 2014 and (2) the Fall and Rise of Starbucks. After exploring the basic notion of responsibility, we present a discussion on the nature and obligation of corporate responsibility into three parts: Part I: Classical Understanding and Discussion on Corporate Responsibility; Part II: Contemporary Understanding and Discussion on Corporate Responsibility, and Part III: A synthesis of classical and contemporary views of responsibility and their applications to corporate executive responsibility.

This chapter seeks to examine the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Kenya and evaluate whether the practices of CSR evidenced in Kenya resonates with the needs and aspirations of the people or has been caricatured from the West. The chapter epistemologically examines CSR and tilts this approach to Kenya and how Kenyan indigenous organisations are practising it. There is no denying that the West has been significant in shaping the frameworks of the contemporary CSR agenda thus making its definition not African. It is important to realise that there is no homogeneity in terms of the needs and realities between developed and developing countries. In this regard, any attempts to homogenise the conceptualisation of CSR cannot hold water due to disparities in the cultural underpinnings. A common understanding in the scholarship on CSR is that it is culturally determined. Most multinational organisations operating in Africa have always practised the kind of CSR that mostly resonates with the West rather than Africa. The organisation’s mandate is not only to make profits but also to increase and strike a balance of the needs and interests of the stakeholders. Through desktop research, published scholarly articles were analysed and it was established that there is no African CSR. The one practised in Kenya and the other parts of the African continent is a caricature of the Global North which does not conform to the needs, realities, and expectations of Africans.

An efficient corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework in many economies has been linked with human capital development, social and financial inclusion, environmental protection and better stakeholder management. This article examines the level of efficiency of the CSR framework in Nigeria; it underscores the developmental potentials of CSR practices within the Nigerian business community. However, a prevailing trend of haphazard and sometimes dodgy CSR practices by free riding rogue companies mars such potentials. Underpinning these dodgy practices has been a CSR ‘business case’ argument coupled with dysfunctional business (corporate) law assumptions among other causative factors. The article appraises the implications of these causative factors and towards minimising the haphazard practices, proposes corporate law reforms through which the Nigerian CSR framework may become more effective.

Many corporations engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities voluntarily, but there is an ongoing debate about whether the government should intervene in CSR, particularly in countries with challenging institutional contexts. While some have argued that CSR should remain a discretionary exercise, as any attempt to make CSR mandatory through any form of state intervention will negate the meaning and objectives of CSR. However, drawing on the institutional theory, this chapter argues for the need to have some form of legislated CSR for banks operating in countries with challenging institutional contexts. The chapter further acknowledges that a universal CSR framework would be difficult to achieve due to differences in institutional contexts between countries; consequently, the nature, scope, and application of CSR legislation would vary significantly amongst countries as CSR is context dependent. Nonetheless, given the crucial role banks plays in society besides acting as the country's payment system, banks also transform illiquid liabilities into liquid assets, therefore making the banks the drivers of national economic developments globally. Governments in developing and emerging markets (DEMs) should ensure that banks' CSR initiatives are not only meaningful but also impactful by implementing a limited legislated CSR framework. This framework would require banks to establish a CSR committee of the board, make mandatory non-financial disclosures on their CSR activities in their Annual Reports, provide mandatory CSR continuous professional development (CPD) training for bankers, and mandate banks to contribute a certain percentage of their yearly profits before tax to agreed CSR initiatives, among other requirements.

Purpose – This chapter explores the m+eaning and significance of family business social responsibilities (FBSRs) using a metasystem approach, placing emphasis on the role of the family.

Design/Methodology/Approach – We employ a revelatory case study to investigate the complexity of family business (corporate) social responsibility. The main case, a German shoe retailer, is supplemented by other case illustrations that provide additional insights into FBSR.

Findings – To fully understand social responsibility in a family firm context, we need to include social initiatives that go beyond the actual family business as a unit. This FBSR connects family members outside and inside the business and across generations. As FBSR is formed through individual and family-level values, its character is idiosyncratic and contrasts the often standardized approaches in widely held firms.

Practical Implication – Family businesses need to go beyond the business as such when considering their engagement in social responsibility. Family ownership implies that all social initiatives conducted by family members, regardless if they are involved in the firm or not, are connected. This includes a shared responsibility for what family members do at present and have done in the past.

Over the last three decades, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved significantly as a worldwide trend in both the management literature and the modern economy. However, it is still at its infancy stage in the developing countries like Malaysia. It is more prevalent in the coffee industry, due to the challenges that this industry encounters. In addition, not much information is available in the academic literature in order to understand these challenges that this industry is facing in performing CSR. Therefore, this chapter aims to highlight the main challenges that the coffee franchise industry faces in incorporating the activities of CSR in their operations. Lack of top management support, performing CSR in isolation, and lack of capable employees to do CSR are some of the major challenges. This chapter is expected to advance the knowledge about CSR practices and challenges in the Malaysian context.