Suchergebnisse

Purpose
Growing social concerns and ecological issues accelerate firms' environmental, social and governance (ESG) engagement. Hence, this study aims to advance the existing literature by focusing on the interplay between institutional and firm governance mechanisms for greater ESG engagement. More specifically, the authors investigate whether public governance stimulates excessive ESG engagement and whether corporate governance moderates this relationship.


Design/methodology/approach
Using a sample of 43,803 firm-year observations affiliated with 41 countries and 9 industries, the authors adopt a country, industry and year fixed-effects regression analysis.


Findings
The authors find that public governance strength via its six dimensions stimulates excessive ESG engagement. This implies that firms in countries with strong voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption are more motivated for ESG engagement. Furthermore, corporate governance negatively moderates the relationship between all public governance dimensions (except political stability) and excessive ESG engagement. This implies that public governance and corporate governance are substitutes for encouraging firms to commit to ESG. Further tests reveal that whereas these results in the baseline analyses are valid for developed countries, they are not valid in emerging markets.


Research limitations/implications
The findings support the interplay between institutional and agency theories. In countries with strong (weak) institutional mechanisms, corporate governance becomes weak (strong) in inciting greater stakeholder engagement. This implies that the public governance mechanism alleviates agency costs, rendering internal mechanisms of corporate governance noncompulsory for ESG engagement.


Practical implications
The findings suggest that emerging countries need to reinforce their institutions for greater accountability, regulatory quality and control of corruption, which will have a domino effect on firms in addressing stakeholder expectations. The results also advise emerging country firms to augment their internal monitoring mechanisms for greater stakeholder engagement, such as structuring boards and establishing corporate social responsibility mechanisms, committees and policies.


Originality/value
This study contributes to the recent literature investigating the role of corporate governance mechanisms in excessive ESG engagement. The study also explores whether public governance is associated with greater ESG involvement and provides a comprehensive analysis of the association between six indicators of public governance quality and excessive ESG practices in developed and emerging economies.

This article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design-based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self-governance, and co-governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design-based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re-conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

AbstractThis article examines how modes of governance are reconfigured as a result of using algorithms in the governance process. We argue that deploying algorithmic systems creates a shift toward a special form of design‐based governance, with power exercised ex ante via choice architectures defined through protocols, requiring lower levels of commitment from governing actors. We use governance of three policy problems – speeding, disinformation, and social sharing – to illustrate what happens when algorithms are deployed to enable coordination in modes of hierarchical governance, self‐governance, and co‐governance. Our analysis shows that algorithms increase efficiency while decreasing the space for governing actors' discretion. Furthermore, we compare the effects of algorithms in each of these cases and explore sources of convergence and divergence between the governance modes. We suggest design‐based governance modes that rely on algorithmic systems might be re‐conceptualized as algorithmic governance to account for the prevalence of algorithms and the significance of their effects.

Good Governance has been in argument from three decades in context of theoretical approach. It is specified and encompassed in Political Science of development in reverence of administrative component to achieve Social goals of society. The wide range of Good Governance topic has been understood to create an atmosphere of Accountability, Transparency, Rule of Law, Consensus orientation, Effectiveness and Efficiency so as to develop the region with international and national standards of the State. Good Governors relates to the institutional reformation Process and Political Will regarding Peace and sustainable development of the region.This research paper defines Good Governance with its all essential elements to achieve the development programs with the long range values, whereas, Political participation with the democratic ideas for achieving the goal of maintainable development of the region. The vision of good governance is discussed on boarder vision from institution to the state and Socio-economic factor is emphasized through the good governance reformative period.

E-governance is becoming a buzzword. Across the world, we have been hearing about e-governance.as socio-economic issues' expanding day to day, every government has started to extend its administration from high level to low level for mitigating of the various kinds of problems of socio-economic, science and technology, etc. with immense use of electronic devices. Governments worldwide are seeking to harness the potential offered by these new technologies to create new dimensions of economic and social progress. The present paper discusses the need for transformation from traditional governance to e-governance. In addition, it tries to focus on the factors for good governance. This paper specifically addresses the e-government initiatives that have a direct impact on the citizens and in which the citizens derive benefit through direct transactions with the governmental services.

Im Artikel werden ausgewählte Befunde aus einem international- vergleichenden Forschungsprojekt präsentiert, das zwischen 2004 und 2009 am Lehrstuhl für Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung der Universität Tübingen durchgeführt und von der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung teil-finanziert worden ist. Das Projekt zielt darauf ab, das Konzept des Lebenslangen Lernens in bildungspolitischer und empirischer Hinsicht zu rekonstruieren, indem es seine Rezeption in der Bildungspolitik auf nationaler Ebene aufzeigt und seine Implementierung in nationale und internationale Modelle des Bildungsmonitoring und der Bildungsberichterstattung erforscht. In dem Forschungsprojekt sind Fragen nach der Steuerungskapazität, den Steuerungsinstrumenten sowie den Steuerungswirkungen supra- und internationaler Organisationen, nämlich der EU und der OECD, bei der Implementierung ihrer (bildungs- ) politischen Ansätze auf nationaler Ebene untersucht. Den bildungspolitischen Hintergrund der Untersuchung bildeten drei Phänomene: Die globale Diffusion der bildungspolitischen Leitidee des Lebenslangen Lernens, die Emergenz eines transnationalen Bildungsraums jenseits des Nationalstaats und das Aufkommen neuer Steuerungsmechanismen und -praxen im Bildungsbereich, die sich treffender unter dem Begriff "Governance" subsumieren lassen. (ICB2)

Im Artikel werden ausgewählte Befunde aus einem international- vergleichenden Forschungsprojekt präsentiert, das zwischen 2004 und 2009 am Lehrstuhl für Erwachsenenbildung/Weiterbildung der Universität Tübingen durchgeführt und von der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung teil-finanziert worden ist. Das Projekt zielt darauf ab, das Konzept des Lebenslangen Lernens in bildungspolitischer und empirischer Hinsicht zu rekonstruieren, indem es seine Rezeption in der Bildungspolitik auf nationaler Ebene aufzeigt und seine Implementierung in nationale und internationale Modelle des Bildungsmonitoring und der Bildungsberichterstattung erforscht. In dem Forschungsprojekt sind Fragen nach der Steuerungskapazität, den Steuerungsinstrumenten sowie den Steuerungswirkungen supra- und internationaler Organisationen, nämlich der EU und der OECD, bei der Implementierung ihrer (bildungs-) politischen Ansätze auf nationaler Ebene untersucht. Den bildungspolitischen Hintergrund der Untersuchung bildeten drei Phänomene: Die globale Diffusion der bildungspolitischen Leitidee des Lebenslangen Lernens, die Emergenz eines transnationalen Bildungsraums jenseits des Nationalstaats und das Aufkommen neuer Steuerungsmechanismen und -praxen im Bildungsbereich, die sich treffender unter dem Begriff "Governance" subsumieren lassen. (ICB2).

Im ersten Teil wird gefragt, welche Governance-Akteure an der Erbringung der jeweils betrachteten Governance-Leistungen beteiligt sind und welche Rolle der Staat bei der Erbringung dieser Governance-Leistungen spielt. Im zweiten Teil wird untersucht, welche Akteure welche Governance-Funktionen - Entscheidungs-, Organisations-, Legitimationskompetenz - übernehmen und es werden typische Governance-Konstellationen im Sinne von Beziehungen zwischen Governance-Akteuren spezifiziert. Im dritten Teil werden Konflikte identifiziert, die in diesen Governance-Konstellationen typischerweise auftreten, sowie Muster, die sich beim Umgang mit den Konstellationen herausgebildet haben. Abschließend wird die Bedeutung des Staates für gutes Regieren im Vergleich zwischen Räumen konsolidierter und begrenzter Staatlichkeit diskutiert. (ICE2)

Who governs when nobody governs ?" This question is addressed by looking at phenomena that have become characteristic of cities today: violence, crime, immigration, mobility. Answering this question also requires paying more attention to different forms of regulation : state, market, along with cooperative/reciprocal modes of regulation. Risk embodies these different forms : it has become a common way of framing and addressing a wide variety of urban problems, suggesting that to govern is to identify and to manage vulnerabilities through different modes of regulation. Lastly, the question points to the uncertainty that characterizes city borders : these are constantly being redefined both by demographics, urbanization and political reforms.

Who governs when nobody governs ?" This question is addressed by looking at phenomena that have become characteristic of cities today: violence, crime, immigration, mobility. Answering this question also requires paying more attention to different forms of regulation : state, market, along with cooperative/reciprocal modes of regulation. Risk embodies these different forms : it has become a common way of framing and addressing a wide variety of urban problems, suggesting that to govern is to identify and to manage vulnerabilities through different modes of regulation. Lastly, the question points to the uncertainty that characterizes city borders : these are constantly being redefined both by demographics, urbanization and political reforms.