Public Responsibility in the Private Corporation

Andrews, Kenneth R.

doi:10.2307/2098241

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature concerning social auditing and accountability began a few years later, in the early 1970s (Bauer and Fenn 1973). The theories have been also called corporate social responsiveness or cited as belonging to the Harvard group (see, for example, Ackerman 1973; Andrews 1972, 1973; Bauer and Fenn 1973), as Frederick (1978) pointed out. They define social audit as ‘a commitment to systematic assessment of and reporting on some meaningful, definable domain of a company's activities that have social impact’ (Bauer and Fenn 1973, 38).…”

Section: Theories From Inside the Firm: The Managerial Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility

Secchi

2007

Int J Management Reviews

166

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concepts and theories of corporate social responsibility (CSR) have been examined and classified by scholars since the mid-1970s. However, owing to the evolving meaning of CSR and the huge number of scholars who have begun to analyze the issue in recent years fresh efforts are needed to understand new developments. Since there is a great heterogeneity of theories and approaches, the task remains a very hard one, mainly because heterogeneity derives from multi-disciplinary diversity. The criterion for selection is to consider the role that theorists confer to the firm. Following this idea, three groups of theories have been discerned: (1) the utilitarian group, in which the corporation is intended as a maximizing 'black box' where problems of externalities and social costs emerge; (2) the managerial category, where problems of responsibility are approached from inside the firm (internal perspective); (3) relational theories, or those in which the type of relations between the firm and the environment are at the center of the analysis. The three perspectives allow the reader to understand the most significant differences between the various theories of CSR. The objective is to classify the theories and to draw a map in which group specificities can be made available. This allows scholars to reach a better understanding of corporate-society relations, and enhances developments both in theoretical and empirical terms.

show abstract

Section: Theories From Inside the Firm: The Managerial Groupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility

Secchi

2007

Int J Management Reviews

166

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the Chicago School model, public health can also play a policy advocacy role, calling for legal regulation of business (e.g., Macy, Middlestadt, Seo, Kolbe, & Jay, 2012). 1 What is ruled out is the legitimacy of the effort to change business norms by engaging business directly with a campaign to "tax" shareholders by voluntarily trading short-term profits for the desired higher standard (Andrews, 1972; see Table 1).…”

Section: The Chicago School Model Of Business Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional Entrepreneurship for Digital Public Health Promotion: Challenges and Opportunities

Reyes

2019

Health Educ Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This commentary highlights the challenges and opportunities facing institutional entrepreneurship in the digital public health realm. The institutional entrepreneurship of public health researchers concerns the opportunity to improve the norms regulating social media companies by engaging the public and private sectors. Beyond the clarification of concepts, the contribution of the commentary is to demonstrate why public health researchers committed to institutional entrepreneurship should mind the mental model they employ to think about business regulation. The popular Chicago School model negates the legitimacy of corporate policy making that trades profits for public health. Thinking this way obscures the relevance of institutional entrepreneurship by stipulating that corporations should answer to shareholders and government but not civil society. Though digital health communication is consistent with the Chicago School picture, the alternative public–private model reinforces opportunities for digital health communication as well as institutional entrepreneurship. The commentary proposes a toolkit for public health researchers to consciously open up to opportunities for institutional entrepreneurship in digital public health.

show abstract

“…As a result, the gas volume change is very large. The standard method to calculate the gas adiabat is only accurate when the magnitude of the volume change is less than about 5% [15]. In expansion, the energy change is overestimated so the gas cools to an unphysical low temperature.…”

Section: Calculation Of Pressure and Energy Density Using The Entropymentioning

confidence: 99%

Modifications and Applications of the HERMES model: June - October 2010

Reaugh¹

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public Responsibility in the Private Corporation

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility

Utilitarian, managerial and relational theories of corporate social responsibility

Institutional Entrepreneurship for Digital Public Health Promotion: Challenges and Opportunities

Modifications and Applications of the HERMES model: June - October 2010

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About