A growing number of companies are convening stakeholder networks to address complex sustainability and corporate responsibility issues. The role of network convenor is new for most companies, and it involves different ways of thinking, being and engaging beyond the more traditional approaches to managing bilateral stakeholder relationships.
Corporate social responsibility has become a vital part of the business conversation. The issue for most companies is no longer whether to engage in socially responsible activities but how to achieve the maximum benefit from the resources available for social projects while still increasing shareholder value.
As the war for talent intensifies, there is growing evidence that a company's corporate social responsibility activities comprise a legitimate and compelling way to attract and retain good employees. To burnish their social responsibility credentials and thereby attract and retain talent, CEOs of companies such as Home Depot, Delta Air Lines and SAP recently pledged to deploy millions of employee volunteers on various community projects.
The article reports that involving employees in the implementation of green business strategies can improve their morale. The author says that employees can be approached on three levels that are based on environmentalism and that will help them focus on the core business and on gaining a competitive advantage.
This paper examines the role of the corporate objective function in increasing corporate productivity, social welfare, and the accountability of managers and directors. Because it is logically impossible to maximize in more than one dimension, purposeful behavior requires a “single-valued” objective function. Two hundred years of work in economics and finance implies that, in the absence of externalities and monopoly, social welfare is maximized when each firm in an economy aims to maximize its total market value. The main contender to value maximization is stakeholder theory, which argues that managers should attempt to balance the interests of all corporate stakeholders, including not only financial claimants, but employees, customers, communities, and governmental officials. By refusing to specify how to make the necessary tradeoffs among these competing interests, the advocates of stakeholder theory leave managers with a theory that makes it impossible for them to make purposef
The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory's greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations -critical and friendly - of the theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing theory as a starting place for future research.
As of 2010, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was the largest marine oil spill ever to occur in U.S. waters. By the time the well was capped on July 15, 2010, nearly five million barrels of oil (205.8 million gallons) had spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. Federal science and engineering teams revised their estimates on the rate of oil flow several times, and in August they concluded that between April 20 and July 15, 53,000-62,000 barrels per day spilled into the Gulf,4 an amount that was equivalent to a spill the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez every four to five days.5 Before the Deepwater Horizon disaster, the Exxon Valdez held the record for the largest spill in U.S. waters.