Search results

Stakeholder capitalism (SC) advocates that organisations should focus on creating long-term value for all key stakeholders rather than maximising short-term profits for shareholders. This paper aims to explore whether and how business organisations have applied stakeholder capitalism principles (SCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic and how these efforts were communicated in integrated reports.

This study is based on the content analysis of the text extracted from the integrated reports of 22 companies categorised as excellent in the 2020 EY Excellence in Integrated Reporting Award 2020. The research material consisted of paragraphs that reflected how the company observed the SCPs in practice.

The stakeholder responsibility principle was the most represented by the examined companies, followed by the principles of continuous creation, stakeholder engagement and stakeholder cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic has propelled the necessity of implementing innovative solutions to counteract the virus's spread. It has also spurred the need for two-way digitalised communication between the executives and stakeholders. The new situation also required collaborative approaches in the forms of partnerships, joint initiatives and programmes to ensure employee safety and help communities recover from the social and economic impacts of the pandemic.

This study links SC with integrated reporting (IR) and contributes to the literature by providing new insights into how SCPs have been applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. This discussion suggests that whereas these principles determine how the companies must act to satisfy stakeholders expectations, integrating reporting may help develop a report that is stakeholder-oriented and which responds to their information needs.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Invisible stakeholders are often significantly affected by a firm but not heard or catered toward, and often consist of marginalized groups.

The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of corporate governance structures in the UK and Germany addressing the extent to which corporate governance structures may have been a contributory factor to the recent banking crisis. Following a review of shareholder and stakeholder theories of corporate governance and a comparative overview of corporate governance codes in the UK and Germany, the authors aim to provide some country level macroeconomic data and performance related data for a small number of large banks in the UK and Germany.

The paper is structured as follows. It first reviews the existing literature that underpins the stakeholder vs shareholder debate within corporate governance. It then reviews the current codes of conduct and governance structures implemented by UK and German banks. An analysis of the extent to which the banking crises can be attributed to failures in governance is presented and finally some conclusions and recommendations are outlined.

Findings suggest that while corporate governance in banks would appear to have been a significant factor in the recent banking crisis, based on the performance data, it cannot be said that a corporate governance approach based on either shareholder capitalism (UK) or stakeholder capitalism (Germany) is more at fault than the other. However, it is clear that UK and German corporate governance structures were not adequate to prevent the recent banking crisis and only time will tell whether the remedial actions taken have been sufficient. The present findings, in line with those presented in the Walker report in 2009, suggest that the codes of conduct in both countries were not adequate to deal with the complex issues caused by the financial crisis and that changes need to be implemented. The authors fully acknowledge that corporate governance only played a part in the financial crisis and in order to try to stop a repeat of this, the whole regulatory environment in both countries needs to be strengthened.

The main limitation of the study lies with a lack of complex analysis undertaken to support the findings.

The findings from the study suggest that, regardless of the type of governance in operation, current corporate governance rules were not adequate and that a new set of rules is needed in both the UK and Germany. The findings also suggest that the stakeholder/shareholder debate may not be as important as previously claimed and that regulators need to find good governance rules, regardless of theoretical underpinnings.

Governments across the world are currently cutting public spending in an extreme fashion and this is, partly, due to the banking crises. Therefore, poor governance in the banking sector is leading to massive social problems in the real world as governments cut services.

The paper is original as it is the first attempt to discuss the corporate governance failing and the banking crises from a shareholder/stakeholder perspective.

Identifies four conceptual models and four practical steps to enhance responsible management of organizations. The conceptual models discussed include: a modified process model of parallel strategic planning; a model of contractual/strategic development; a model of organizational theories and their relative moral emphases; and a model of organizational moral development. The four practical steps which managers can take include: developing the technical skills of environmental scanning, issue monitoring, and scenario building; the organizational design skills of moral climate assessment, codes of conduct, and moral audits; the value‐conflict resolution skills of stage‐challenging dialogue and structured rational processing of dilemmas; and the feedback and control network skills of providing channels for multi‐level input and protection for whistleblowers. Argues that the awareness of, as well as the routine use of these conceptual models and practical steps will allow managers to be more responsible strategic planners.

The aim of this paper is to investigate how values from within Abrahamic religions could be adopted to improve liberal market economies’ (LMEs’) corporate governance business practices.

The concept of spiritual capitalism is explained from an Islamic perspective by adopting three universal Abrahamic values to critically analyse LMEs and offer an ethical alternative to current capitalism concerns.

It is found that LMEs can be improved by considering all stakeholders, putting ethics before economics, and introducing shared risk/reward plus lower debt.

The paper compares LMEs/Co‐ordinated market economies (CMEs)/Islamic countries economies (ICEs) within an ethical framework for LMEs.

This study aims to focus on the understanding corporate social responsibility (CSR), this “novel” form of corporate engagement, and evaluating its capacity to regulate capitalism. The authors advance the following thesis: CSR constitutes a new variety of regulation of capitalism which, to work efficiently, must be built on collective institutions (through both collective agreements and forms of coercion), instead of strictly contractual forms (based on inter-individual relations and voluntary commitments).

To support this thesis, the authors use Karl Polanyi’s theory, in particular his concept of “fictitious commodities”. Like Polanyi, we contend that CSR is a necessary reaction to the new “great transformation” brought about by the financialisation of our economy which is currently in crisis. Polanyi agrees that this kind of regulation can yield results only when based on collective institutions. In the last section of the study, the authors attempt to determine how a “conventionalist analysis” of CSR could help us to precisely describe this phenomenon and how it could be institutionalised by actors (both inside and outside companies).

This paper theoretically demonstrates the role of institutions in CSR processes and the need to weigh them theoretically. In this sense, the paper demonstrates the aporia of a strictly contractualist framework, not only for the understanding of the phenomenon, but for its deployment.

This study proposes a theoretical framework, which is yet to be consolidated by empirical research.

The paper proposes salient elements of a public policy of responsibility.

The paper proposes a methodological framework to go beyond a bilateral representation of the institutional framework and to produce a collective representation of the negotiation.

This is an original paper in its theoretical positioning and the implications it suggests for economic policy.

Those who use stakeholder theory as a reference are both underlining the correlation between facts and a certain conceptualization thereof, and trying to make the necessary shift from a “panoptic” analysis akin to a panoramic vision of texts and positions, to an “in‐depth” one geared towards an understanding of their foundations. As a “theory of organizations”, stakeholder theory helps to nourish a relational model of organizations by revisiting questions about “who” is actually working with (and in) the firm. Stakeholder theory is part of a comprehensive project that views the organization‐group relationship as both a foundation and a norm.

Two sets of questions animate this discussion: (1) What is corporate social responsibility? Why is it desirable? How can it be assessed? (2) Why should public relations practitioners be interested in corporate social responsibility?can public relations do to promote corporate social responsibility globally? Drawing on a variety of literature, the authors argue that corporations out of their own self‐interest must embrace a global approach in fulfilling their social responsibility and that public relations professionals have an obligation to carry out that responsibility by recognising in their practices that the most important “corporate” stakeholder is society itself.

This paper critically analyses the future of Integrated Reporting (IR) given recent and likely future developments in corporate reporting and sustainability disclosure standard setting.

This paper uses Alvesson and Deetz’s (2000) critical framework to consider the research question through insight (a review of the history of IR and the formation of the International Sustainability Standards Board [ISSB]), critique (considering power structures, momentum and global trends) and transformative redefinition (proposing reasons for how and why IR might survive or perish).

IR’s future as a reporting initiative is uncertain. Pressure from investors may lead to detailed sustainability disclosures being favoured over IR’s more holistic story-telling approach. This may result in IR joining the long list of abandoned corporate reporting initiatives. Yet IR is not incompatible with recent developments in non-financial reporting and may continue to thrive. IR aligns well with developments in management accounting practices and other voluntary forms of sustainability reporting. IR’s associated “Integrated Thinking” seeks to develop organisational decision-making that leads to sustainable value creation. Whether it lasts as an external reporting format or not, IR is likely to leave a legacy related to changes in reporting characteristics.

This study explores the future of IR at a critical juncture in corporate reporting history, considering the entry of the ISSB, which is fundamentally changing the landscape of sustainability disclosure standard setting.

The aim of this paper is to show that there could still be the possibility of a complementary relationship between capitalism and socialism (effective state), so that a higher human, social and economic order is realised.

The paper is a meta‐analytical study, which relied on secondary sources of information. It is a qualitative study that is based on conceptual analysis, theory building and “emic” perspective (authors' viewpoint).

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1998 and the fall of the famous Berlin Wall, the final victory or triumph of capitalism over its alternatives was heralded. This development saw nations, most especially the developing ones, rushing to infuse themselves into the capitalist global system, which is reflected by the opening of borders to the capitalist onslaught. However, soon after this euphoric capitalist triumphalism, capitalism seems to be heading to another cross‐road, which is capable of undermining the aforesaid euphoria. As capital is now set to continue its accumulation, expansion and profitability, unemployment is on the rise, as government ability to create lasting employment has become ineffective due to the privatisation of the public sectors, retrenchment by private business, etc. The state of affairs is exacerbating the crime rate (both within nations and globally), ethnic and global tension, poverty and ill‐feeling. Hence, there could be other better global alternatives to the current single capitalist triumphant orthodoxy.

Socialism has failed and capitalism is in the process of failing. Therefore, the only hope left to resurrect socialism and resuscitate capitalism, is a complementary and comprehensive ideological order. In that sense, there is a need to complement the positive aspects of both ideologies.

This paper is original, since no other paper has taken up the topic of “Triumphant capitalism and the future of human, social and economic progress in the post‐Cold War era”. The suggestion given in the paper could help to achieve a higher level of human, social and economic progress in the post‐Cold War era, most especially in the developing nations.