I argue that a governance perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR) makes it possible to explain why the concept will always be under‐defined, is normative and thus political by nature, and is and should be difficult to measure. The perspective also makes it possible to understand the interaction between corporate values and stakeholders values.In processes of dialogue within governance systems and governance structures, changing insights into the principles of CSR can lead to regulation or its adjustment. Power is important in (...) these dialogues. Principles are at least partly shaped within governance systems and governance structures, and they influence the outcomes of corporate policies. Changes within the regulatory framework could also lead to changes in the principles of CSR.Value attunement processes could lead to regulation, which again influences the governance structures and thus the power of stakeholders within the dialogue. The theoretical model provided helps to analyze why CSR is different in companies, cultures and academic traditions. (shrink)

To teach that being ethical requires knowing foundational ethical principles – or, as Socrates claimed, airtight definitions of ethical terms – is to invite cynicism among students, for students discover that no such principles can be found. Aristotle differs from Socrates in claiming that ethics is about virtues primarily, and that one can be virtuous without having the sort of knowledge that characterizes mathematics or natural science. Aristotle is able to demonstrate that ethics and self-interest may overlap, that ethics is (...) largely compatible with common sense, and that Aristotle’s virtuous person can make ethical decisions rationally. Case studies can help students improve their ethical perception and keep their values from being overwhelmed by corporate culture. (shrink)

This paper addresses the question, how does wisdom contribute to management in circumstances of extreme unpredictability? We first discuss three key factors that fundamentally affect the conduct of business—human, knowledge, and the environment—as well as their characteristics and interactions. We then argue that managing the interaction between these factors to effectively deal with the complexity and unpredictability of a rapidly changing business world requires the appropriate application of wisdom, in particular ethics in the form of practical, moral, and epistemic virtues. (...) We propose that these three virtues are the link between the three factors and more effective decision-making and action taking in an unpredictable business world. A model is developed that conceptualizes the interconnection among the three factors and three virtues. This model has important academic and practical implications. For practice, the model points the way for both individuals and organizations to improve decision-making skills through the systematic expansion of perspectives gained through consideration of the three virtues. For academics, the model is an incremental, but important step in understanding the role of wisdom in management. (shrink)

The purpose of our article is to describe the initial development process of the subordinate influence ethics (SIE) measure, an instrument that was crossculturally conceived, designed, and validity tested to measure upward influence ethics strategies of professional subordinates across different societies, as well as within a single society. Development of the SIE began by defining the SIE constructs through theoretical review and empirical (nominal group technique) assessments in Germany, France, Hong Kong, and the U. S. In the present measurement development (...) phase, the SIE has been found to consist of three distinct dimensions: pro-organizational behaviors, self-serving behaviors, and maliciously intended behaviors. The construct validity of the SIE was examined across 4113 subjects from 30 countries. A reduced model of the SIE was developed empirically to represent the "best model" for the three-factor scale. (shrink)

Buyer–supplier relationships are often framed as principal–agent relationships, based on contractual arrangements that temporarily align the goals of both parties. The underlying notion is that the relationship between buyers and suppliers is adversarial in nature and that the supplier, acting in the role of the agent, will take advantage of the principal if not sufficiently controlled. We propose that there is empirically also another type of partnership which reflects the propositions of stewardship theory. According to this theory, suppliers are motivated (...) to work autonomously towards contractually agreed objectives. We analyse how the agency and stewardship theories differ regarding their descriptions of autonomy, motivation, identification, authority, stakeholder orientation and short- versus long-term collaboration. We analyse the case of a first-tier supplier and four second-tier suppliers situated in Turkey in the area of Istanbul which collaborate with the aim of improving their social and environmental performance. The results show that the relationship between the partners in this case has become more collaborative over time and can now be described in terms of stewardship theory rather than in terms of agency theory. We conclude that the distinction between agency and stewardship relationships is empirically meaningful in the context of supplier–buyer relationships and adds a new aspect to our understanding of how to achieve more sustainable supply chains. (shrink)