Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe increasing popularity and use of codes requires a technique for being able to distinguish how different codes compare to each other and to stakeholder demands for increased social, environmental and economic responsibility of business. This paper presents the statement strength evaluation method (SSEM), which provides organizations with the ability to make comparisons between codes against a backdrop of stakeholder expectations. The SSEM evaluates six critical characteristics for each statement made in the code relating to each appropriate criterion. The criteria were developed through synthesis of a vast range of stakeholder concerns, resulting in 597 unique but overlapping criteria. This level of detail has been retained to ensure accurate comparison between different code types and ranges of content depending on varied contexts such as industry and operating locations (e.g. domestic versus international). A test of the SSEM using 13 third party codes revealed strengths and weaknesses of codes based on structure, and highlighted certain codes as potentially more effective in helping business to govern their CSR objectives. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

AbstractManuscript TypeConceptualResearch Question/IssueGiven its position as a dominant logic in corporate governance, this paper evaluates the theoretical and practical implications of agency theory on good governance. Agency theory is presented as consisting of two layers, one resting on the assumption of oppositional shareholder–manager interests and the other resting on the assumption of supportive shareholder–society interests. Given the dominance of the simple economic depiction of agency theory, its first layer is heavily researched and supported, while the second layer is largely unsubstantiated and often exploited to obscure inefficiencies in the first layer.Research Findings/InsightsAgency theory is shown to fill a highly institutionalized position in governance, despite often violating the second layer's assumption of aligned shareholder–society interests. We assert that the relationship between societal benefits and value maximization must be reconceptualized from interdependent to correlated but independent. Otherwise, when the second layer of agency theory is undercut, shareholders can eschew their role as societal guardians to partner with managers and engage in mutual managerialism at the expense of society. We detail how inefficiencies in first layer mechanisms (market regulation, monitoring, and contracts) impact agency theory's second layer and present the new mechanisms of oversight boards and expanded founding firm documents to reintegrate a societal orientation.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsAligned shareholder–society interests are shown to be frequently undermined, artificially substantiating the second layer assumption that societal betterment can be sufficiently promoted via financial rewards and sanctions. We discuss agency theory's underlying logic and present the possibility that a violated second layer can be exploited to obscure first layer inefficiencies. Ineffectiveness in the first layer's key mechanisms is shown to potentially undercut agency theory's promotion of good corporate governance on an organizational and societal level.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsOversight boards and expanded founding firm documents are presented to make agency theory's second layer explicit, ensuring the assumed supportive nature of the shareholder–society relationship is substantiated. Specifically, oversight boards formalize how members of boards of directors are vetted, oversee societal claims to ensure that appropriate ones are sufficiently presented and addressed, supervise reporting, and sanction firms who fail to enact these duties. Revised founding documents ensure that both economic and social goals are enshrined in the mission of incorporated firms. Together the two help establish the foundation of a measurable approach to socially responsible actions.

ABSTRACTManuscript Type: EmpiricalResearch Issue: We investigate the assumption found in code and corporate social responsibility (CSR) literature that suggests codes are primarily associated with the CSR practices of an organization.Research Findings/Results: A web‐based study of 150 corporations from three different countries indicates there is little empirical support for this link between codes and CSR. Thus, if a corporation has a code, it is more likely used to govern traditional business concerns, such as compliance with third party governance requirements, internal issues such as conflict of interest, bribery and corruption, insider trading, etc. This is consistent across all three countries. Therefore we must be cautious against assuming a link between codes and CSR. Evidence of the different governance contexts is also briefly discussed.Theoretical Implications: Findings are addressed to theoretical debates about the construction of corporate identity, the amoralization of business, and the globalization of management practices.Practical Implications: Stakeholders must be careful in assuming that the presence of a code indicates CSR commitments or behavior. Stakeholders need to look at the content of the code to confirm or deny this assumption, particularly such stakeholders as investors who tend to use the existence of a code as evidence of CSR practices to tick "check the box."

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study is made up of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two case study urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops and ethnography three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. We will: map the system of actors and processes involved in each case study; develop, test and refine the combined intervention; evaluate the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. We are testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.

Poor quality urban environments substantially increase non-communicable disease. Responsibility for associated decision-making is dispersed across multiple agents and systems: fast growing urban authorities are the primary gatekeepers of new development and change in the UK, yet the driving forces are remote private sector interests supported by a political economy focused on short-termism and consumption-based growth. Economic valuation of externalities is widely thought to be fundamental, yet evidence on how to value and integrate it into urban development decision-making is limited, and it forms only a part of the decision-making landscape. Researchers must find new ways of integrating socio-environmental costs at numerous key leverage points across multiple complex systems. This mixed-methods study comprises of six highly integrated work packages. It aims to develop and test a multi-action intervention in two urban areas: one on large-scale mixed-use development, the other on major transport. The core intervention is the co-production with key stakeholders through interviews, workshops, and participatory action research, of three areas of evidence: economic valuations of changed health outcomes; community-led media on health inequalities; and routes to potential impact mapped through co-production with key decision-makers, advisors and the lay public. This will be achieved by: mapping system of actors and processes involved in each case study; developing, testing and refining the combined intervention; evaluating the extent to which policy and practice changes amongst our target users, and the likelihood of impact on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) downstream. The integration of such diverse disciplines and sectors presents multiple practical/operational issues. The programme is testing new approaches to research, notably with regards practitioner-researcher integration and transdisciplinary research co-leadership. Other critical risks relate to urban development timescales, uncertainties in upstream-downstream causality, and the demonstration of impact.