This study examines the outcomes of a large-scale Multistakeholder Collaborative Roundtable (MCR) on environmental protection. The findings shed a considerably more realistic light on the concrete outcomes of MCRs than does the image portrayed by the literature and some practitioners. We observed that consensus was achieved, albeit on general principles only. Various types of learning did occur, but they were limited to networking competencies. Problem solving was detected, albeit in the form of incremental innovation only. Overall, the major result of the MCR studied was that it contributed “small wins” to its initial grand objective. The case illustrates the paradox of MCRs. It teaches us that we should be cautious about their real potential to help solve complex collective problems. Yet, it shows that MCRs do serve a useful purpose, that of giving direction to “metaproblems, ” a result that apparently can hardly be attained otherwise.
PurposeThe paper aims to answer how important institutional actors, such as academic researchers, consulting firms, and foundations, are tracing the boundaries of social entrepreneurship (SE) and how they justify SE as a legitimate form of social purpose organization.Design/methodology/approachThe paper employs a discourse analysis methodology.FindingsThe paper finds traces of the legitimacy issues in the literature on non‐profits and, based on this, argue that a new institutional domain is being constructed. The paper concludes that in this new domain not only is the use of market‐based initiatives seen as a legitimate means of funding a social mission, but also it has now become the normative way and one that is promoted by consultants and foundations concerned with social entrepreneurs and their initiatives.Originality/valueThis paper highlights the developing norms of SE.
We examine shareholder initiated social policy proposals' capacity to exert pressure on management to force it to adopt the suggested changes in policy. We show that social proposals, filed under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 14a-8, have a more limited capacity to change corporate social policy than it has been previously reported. However, the capacity to exert pressure on firms can be substantially higher for some types of filers, notably pension funds and mutual funds. The analysis also suggests that the capacity to influence management is higher for some types of issues presented in the resolution, such as those related to board diversity, energy and environment, and international labor Miguel Rojas is a PhD candidate (Finance) Université du Québec a Montréal, Québec, Canada. He is also the corresponding author for this article. and 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK. and human rights. We also provide suggestions explaining why shareholder activism is a persistent practice despite its limited results.
abnormal returns, buy-and-hold abnor- mal returns, cumulative abnormal returns, environmental performance, event study, financial performance, forest certification,
Cet article analyse le potentiel régulatoire de la responsabilité sociale dans un contexte de mondialisation économique à partir d’une distinction entre ses trois dimensions : les pratiques, le discours et le questionnement. Sans comprendre la dynamique des initiatives corporatives de responsabilité sociale, le discours sur la responsabilité sociale élude les questionnements auxquels l’entreprise doit aujourd’hui faire face pour conserver sa légitimité et assurer son ancrage dans la société. Mais plutôt que de déplorer leur manque d’effectivité, les auteurs avancent que les mesures volontaires de responsabilité sociale telles que les codes de conduite ou ce que certains appellent la soft law sont annonciatrices d’un cadre de responsabilité sociale en voie d’institutionnalisation à l’échelle mondiale. Sur la base d’une analyse de l’expérience européenne, ils montrent que deux cadres de responsabilité sociale au potentiel régulatoire très différent sont actuellement en concurrence, et concluent en jetant les bases du système régulatoire qui semble se configurer à l’échelle internationale.“Social responsibility” now seems to have become the panacea for the ills of globalization. Still marginal only a few decades ago, it now promises to fill the regulatory void created by the dismantling of Fordism and the formation of global economic and financial markets. In this article, we explore the anticipated regulatory impact of social responsibility in order to determine whether it could play a regulatory role for globalized business.One of the most recent definitions of social responsibility actually cites the voluntary initiatives now being taken by corporations, above and beyond their legal obligations. Since many stakeholders from the business world argue that regulatory measures are excessive, unwieldy and costly, voluntary initiatives are being viewed as alternatives to regulation or as regulatory alternatives inasmuch as they are founded on self-regulation. In contrast, this paper presents voluntary measures and regulations as two sides of the same coin : voluntary measures only emerge in anticipation of regulatory measures. This interweaving of voluntary measures with regulation is diametrically opposed to the discourse on social responsibility, which tends to reinforce the image of voluntary measures as an alternative to traditional regulation. Accordingly, the current discourse on social responsibility would have us believe that somewhere between the invisible hand of the market and the all-too-visible hand of the State, corporate management can lend a helping hand in the regulation of corporate activities. Thus, the discourse on social responsibility appears to have placed the greater good of society at the heart of corporate missions, without reforming corporate structures—structures still devoted to the private interests of their shareholders. So, what is this discourse on social responsibility really targeting ? It is hypothesized here that the social responsibility discourse is a corollary of the new role tha...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.