No abstract

Organizations are socially constructed phenomena. A crucial task for organizational research is to analyze how and why people construct organizations rather than other social forms. In this paper, it is argued that recent public-sector reforms can be interpreted as attempts at constructing organizations. Public-sector entities that could formerly be described as agents or arenas have been transformed into `more complete' organizations by installing or reinforcing local identity, hierarchy and rationality. This interpretation helps to explain important aspects of the reform process.

PurposeCorporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend involving corporations, states, international organizations and civil society organizations. It is far from clear what CSR stands for, what the trend really is, where it comes from, where it is heading and who the leading actors are. If one views it as a social movement, one must ask: a movement of what and for whom? The purpose of this paper is to examine the CSR trend in all its complexity and draw conclusions regarding its development and potential impact.Design/methodology/approachAnalysis of central documents and publications on CSR is combined with interviews with driving corporate actors.FindingsThis article portrays the CSR trend in three ways: as a regulatory framework that places new demands on corporations; as a mobilization of corporate actors to assist the development aid of states; and as a management trend. Each of these portraits suggests certain actors, relations, driving forces and interests as being central. An analysis shows that no one of these views seems to be more accurate than the others: rather the movement comprises a collection of diverse interests, actors, origins and trajectories. These multiple identities may partially describe the trend's success, but could equally well describe its contestation, fragility and fluidity.Originality/valueThe conceptual distinction shows the likely development and potential impact of a corporate social development. Moreover, the discussions help us reflect on the formation of management trends and how certain models come to flow rapidly and extensively around the globe, following and adding to institutional change – especially to changes in the roles, relations and boundaries between and among states, business corporations and civil society organizations.

Risk, regulation and practices of organizing are interrelated in a myriad of ways. Natural disasters, technical failures, and also processes of organizing are sources of risk to which organizations must respond and for which new managerial and regulatory practices are demanded. In this introduction we highlight three salient features of risk management: the (un)intended production of risk by organizations; the complex interrelationship between risk management and regulation; and the evolving and often contested nature of risk management knowledge. Each of these three themes is evident in the different contributions to this themed section. Copyright Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2006.

No abstract

In this article we study the patterns of proliferation, circulation and transformation of MBA programmes in Europe. The article seeks to address two important questions: First, why is it that the label MBA has travelled from the USA to Europe?, and second, to what extent does this label signify the proliferation of similar programmes across the Atlantic? We show that even though the label MBA has diffused around the globe, closer studies of a selection of MBA programmes show that the way in which these local programmes have been formed, clearly reflects their local contexts. Hence, this study is an example of local translations of globalized models. Moreover, the study suggests that we should not take labels as clearly signifying local practices. Instead, while labels of various kinds seem to travel easily and rapidly across the globe, local variations and distinctions remain. Based on case studies of four MBA programmes in Denmark, Italy, Spain and Sweden, we analyse how similarities and differences coexist among MBA programmes. While these case studies clearly show that programmes—in some aspects—are becoming increasingly similar, variations and distinctions among them remain. A few elements of MBA programmes remain stable (the ‘model’) as other elements change as they spread. Therefore, the circulation of a vague model—like an MBA in the management education field—allows for both variance in the local application and stabilization of specific elements. With the proliferation of programmes, the field as a whole displays homogenization as well as heterogenization. Two homogenizing forces, and two heterogenizing forces are identified.

No abstract

This chapter describes how an international organization set up as a forum for the discussion of public administration issues ended up being an active standardizer. Numerous organizations provide standards even if this is not their official or main purpose. Examples are organizations whose task is to be arenas; they produce and provide information and comparisons, report and propose initiatives for change, and generally facilitate exchange of experience, ideas, and ideals. One such organization is PUMA, a committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that serves as an arena where representatives of OECD countries can learn and share their ideas and experience concerning the development of public management. This chapter shows how PUMA emerged as an organization and explains how it developed into a standardizer. The character of the standards created by PUMA is described and explained.