Search results

This paper aims to investigate the extent to which the ideology of shareholder value is compatible with that of transformative corporate social responsibility (CSR). It traces the transformation of corporations from quasi-public institutions at inception to purely private enterprises beginning from the middle of the nineteenth century and attempts to locate the ideology of CSR within the wider viewpoint of shareholder value.

This paper adopts a doctrinal approach through a critical evaluation of the nature and implications of the shareholder value ideology. Using existing literature in the area, it traces the evolution of the shareholder value ideology and how it is antithetical to any meaningful CSR regime.

The paper finds that there is a fundamental tension between ideas about the desirability of effective CSR and the belief that it is to the benefit of society as a whole for corporations to be run solely in the interest of their shareholders and for managers to seek to maximize shareholder value. This ideological tension renders contemporary CSR ineffective.

The paper offers a fresh insight or analysis into the transformation of corporations from quasi-social institutions to purely private enterprises in the middle of the nineteenth century. It does this by engaging in a historical narrative of the evolution of the corporate form and how contemporary ideas of shareholder value have resulted in the emergence of a contemporary CSR devoid of the radical spirit of CSR in the 1950s and 1960s.

Socially responsible behaviour is increasingly demanded of both individuals and organisations as ever more information on the negative side‐effects of economic activity emerges. The two main areas of concern are sustainability (environment) and social justice (accountability). Monitoring and influencing the behaviour or organisations and their managers requires access to sufficient, high‐quality information. Quality of information can be summed up in the degree of transparency it has, from clear to opaque. Accountancy is the profession most involved in the production of financial information. Information technology has had a profound effect on the accountancy profession and on the rules which determine how financial information is produced. The rules are already highly complex but they would need to be changed further to address the concerns of sustainability and social justice. Unless these concerns are addressed Socially Responsible Capitalism will elude us, with potentially disastrous consequences for us all. Even if the accountancy rules are expanded successfully, it will still be essential that individuals educate themselves so that they can successfully challenge organisations about their behaviour, and influence them to behave responsibly.

The objective of this paper is to raise questions and contribute to discourse around the topic of socially responsible capitalism with specific reference to the need for a considered approach between the necessity to foster an entrepreneurial risk taking environment to create a vibrant economy and the need for a balanced yet rigorous regulatory environment. The paper specifically addresses the pro‐active role that academia should be encouraged to play in advising government and stake holders as to how to achieve the optimum position.

The address juxtaposed personal insights and observations drawn from many years as an international businessman with my analysis of the events of the past 75 years (from the great depression to the current credit crises) together with legislation such as, The Glass Steagall Act 1933; The Securities Act 1933; The securities Exchange act 1934; The Fair Labor Standards Act 1938 and The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1997.

A 30‐minute question and answer session followed the address and allowed for extensive discussion and feedback from the audience. Certain members of the audience continued this discussion and feedback via email.

The Q&A evidenced that the address was considered a catalyst for possible new directions with regard to the topic and presented original ideas within the context of the objectives outlined above.

Reviews the development of the corporate social responsibility (CSR) concept and its four components: economic, legal, ethical and altruistic duties. Discusses different perspectives on the proper role of business in society, from profit making to community service provider. Suggests that much of the confusion and controversy over CSR stem from a failure to distinguish among ethical, altruistic and strategic forms of CSR. On the basis of a thorough examination of the arguments for and against altruistic CSR, concurs with Milton Friedman that altruistic CSR is not a legitimate role of business. Proposes that ethical CSR, grounded in the concept of ethical duties and responsibilities, is mandatory. Concludes that strategic CSR is good for business and society. Advises that marketing take a lead role in strategic CSR activities. Notes difficulties in CSR practice and offers suggestions for marketers in planning for strategic CSR and for academic researchers in further clarifying the boundaries of strategic CSR.

This paper aims to examine the nature and role of contemporary CSR in the current neoliberal age. It offers an insight into the tension that exists between the ideologies of “neoliberal” shareholder value and that of “effective” CSR, and argues that both ideologies are fundamentally antithetical. It aims to identify and analyse the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers (ideological, practical and political) that militate against the realization of effective CSR.

The method applied is a critical evaluation of concepts and a thorough review of existing literature on neoliberalism, shareholder value and contemporary CSR. It uses existing literature to highlight the inability of contemporary CSR to transform into an effective mechanism for development.

The paper emphasizes the failure of contemporary CSR to equate to a successful mechanism for development. It concludes that the existence and operations of these barriers militate against the realization of an effective CSR regime capable of leading to development.

Given the current dominance of the “maximizing shareholder value” model of corporate governance internationally, it appears unreasonable to pin too much hope on contemporary CSR as a mechanism for development, especially in emerging economies. Neither the culture of corporations nor the pressures to which they are currently subjected encourage socially responsible behaviour.

The paper extends the body of knowledge in the area of contemporary CSR, by identifying and analysing the inter-connected but distinguishable barriers that render the CSR practices of corporations ineffective.

Describes some of the shortcomings of the traditional approaches to business ethics in organizations, posing the question “Can capitalism co‐exist with social concern?” Discusses social responsibility as successful business practice, rather than nice‐to‐do irrelevance in business. Outlines how quality assurance disciplines can readily apply to organizational efforts in social responsibility. Concludes with a ten‐point checklist, “the ten Cs of concerned capitalism” for people in organizations to consider and apply.

In discussion with Bruce Lloyd, Lester Thurow, Professor of Management and Economics at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, talks about his new book The Future of Capitalism. Despite the end of communism, or perhaps because of it, Thurow argues that capitalism will be under considerable pressure in the years ahead. These challenges arise from demographic factors, including increased trends for more global mobility; as well as the impact on the global economy of the new knowledge‐based industries, which are going to create both new opportunities for inequality at the same time as reinforcing old inequalities. Thurow argues strongly that we need to combine an understanding of these pressures and trends, with a willingness, and ability, to intervene effectively, if we are to be optimistic about the economic development of the world as a whole in the years ahead.

The purpose of this paper is to challenge current and future organizational managers toward engaging in a process of reflecting on the purpose of their performance and the purpose of the organization they serve and also to challenge management educators and coaches to reflect on the emphasis of their training of those who will step into management positions.

This paper reviews the current criticism on organizational management education and practice, and brings global inequality in the scope to underscore the importance of correcting a flawed system based on a flawed perspective.

It is critical to change the narrative the authors use for management in organizations from, “organizations exist to maximize the value of their shareholders, and the managers in those organizations need to ensure that this happens” to, “organizations exist to support the communities in which they operate, and managers in those organizations need to ensure that this happens.”

Organizational managers will focus on a more socially acceptable set of priorities when adopting the narrative promoted in this paper. Business educators will focus on more transdisciplinary approaches to help their students think beyond self-centered and sheer profit-based boundaries, and plant seeds toward constructive and morally sound social change early on.

Communities will fare much better when the organizations in their areas will focus more on well-being of those who reside in the community rather than a handful of often absent shareholders.

This paper questions the core of organizational existence and managerial performance therein. It reaches beyond technological, operational, and tactical levels of performance and questions the grand strategy of organizational existence and performance.

The purpose of this paper is to show that steering overall performance requires not only juxtaposing indicators focused on economic, social and environmental performance but also negotiating the measurement of performance metrics with all the stakeholders.

This is an action-research and intervention-research project aimed at experimenting an integrated and negotiated management control system for overall performance. The choice for the case study is a hospital in the Middle East that practices green management and that has to be self-financed while accepting all patients, even those who cannot pay.

The integration of the three dimensions of overall performance requires involving all stakeholders in the implementation of innovative management control.

The case is a pilot experiment and shows the conditions for an appropriate design of an overall performance management control methodology. However, further experiments should be carried out to shed light on the factors that form invariants regarding integrated performance log-books.

The study design is that of a management control methodology that enables the short- and long-run economic impacts of social and environmental performance.

The action-research process has proved to be a learning experience for the hospital and both internal and external stakeholders. However, replicability remains to be proven through experimenting the method in various settings.

This paper shows the need for negotiation of overall performance with all stakeholders to design and implement an appropriate participative approach to management control.