A notable feature of paradox is recognition that seemingly contradictory terms are inextricably intertwined and interrelated—holding out the hope that something new can be learned from the cognitive tension contained within. Aram has characterized the central concern of the business and society field as the paradox of interdependent relations. Our study argues that this and related paradoxes can be addressed by engaging with others and trying to gain shared insight via an interactive, developmental, exploratory sensemaking process that can inform the (...) governance of stakeholder networks. We advocate multistakeholder learning dialogues (MSLDs) as a means for both scholars and practitioners to construct meanings that can guide joint efforts to cope with messy problems that help shape complex, paradoxical relationships within stakeholder networks. (shrink)

Theoretical and practical trends of corporate citizenship indicate a deepening partnership between business and community. Following these developments, the article develops a model for the participation of businesses in decision-making processes as part of policy making and social-economic planning in the community. The article focuses on three levels: It examines the benefits and risks of such participation; identifies the typical dimensions of the participation processes; and finally, provides guidelines on how to develop a participation strategy based on the unique conditions (...) of each business and community. (shrink)

This article addresses four hypotheses: (a) that corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia is not homogeneous but varies among countries, (b) that the variation is explained by stages of development, (c) that globalization enhances the adoption of CSR in Asia, and (d) that national business systems structure the profile of multinational corporations’ CSR. These hypotheses are investigated through analysis of Web site reporting of 50 companies in seven Asian countries: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. The (...) article concludes that CSR does vary considerably among Asian countries but that this variation is not explained by development but by factors in the respective national business systems. It also concludes that multinational companies are more likely to adopt CSR than those operating solely in their home country but that the profile of their CSR tends to reflect the profile of the country of operation rather than the country of origin. (shrink)

This paper reviews and analyses the implications of citizenship thinking for building ethical institutional arrangements for business. The paper looks at various stakeholder groups whose relation with the company changes quite significantly when one starts to conceptualize it in terms of citizenship. Rather than being simply stakeholders, we could see those groups either as citizens, or as other constituencies participating in the administration of citizenship for others, or in societal governance more broadly. This raises crucial questions about accountability and democracy (...) in stakeholder relations with the corporation. We sketch out the main currents informing and emerging from the citizenship perspective on firm-stakeholder relations; analyze specific stakeholder groups and their particular relevance in the context of a citizenship perspective; and conclude with a discussion of the broader implications in terms of building ethical institutions. (shrink)

This article addresses four hypotheses: (a) that corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Asia is not homogeneous but varies among countries, (b) that the variation is explained by stages of development, (c) that globalization enhances the adoption of CSR in Asia, and (d) that national business systems structure the profile of multinational corporations’ CSR. These hypotheses are investigated through analysis of Web site reporting of 50 companies in seven Asian countries: India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore, and Thailand. The (...) article concludes that CSR does vary considerably among Asian countries but that this variation is not explained by development but by factors in the respective national business systems. It also concludes that multinational companies are more likely to adopt CSR than those operating solely in their home country but that the profile of their CSR tends to reflect the profile of the country of operation rather than the country of origin. (shrink)