Search results

When many people talk about strategy, they really mean positioning. However important positioning may be, strategists who overlook performance factors are ignoring a key ingredient of company strategy and a source of advantage over competitors.

The 1960s saw the birth of corporate social responsibility. In the 1970s, companies focused on the management of social responsiveness. In the 1980s, corporations are grappling with the issue of making social responsibility a part of overall strategic management. The authors examine some of the ramifications of the search for a new definition of social responsibility.

Corporate social responsibility is one of the earliest and key conceptions in the academic study of business and society relations. This article examines the future of corporate social responsibility. Bowen's (1953) key question concerned whether the interests of business and society merge in the long ran. That question is assessed in the present and future contexts. There seem to be distinctly anti‐responsibility trends in recent academic literature and managerial views concerning best practices. These trends raise significant doubts about the future status of corporate social responsibility theory and practice. The vital change is that a leitmotif of wealth creation progressively dominates the managerial conception of responsibility. The article provides a developmental history of the corporate social responsibility notion from the Progressive Era forward to the corporate social performance framework and Carroll's pyramid of corporate social responsibilities. There are three emerging alternatives or competitors to responsibility: (1) an economic conception of responsibility; (2) global corporate citizenship; and (3) stakeholder management practices. The article examines and assesses each alternative. The article then assesses the prospects for business responsibility in a global context. Two fundamentals of social responsibility remain: (1) the prevailing psychology of the manager; and (2) the normative framework for addressing how that psychology should be shaped. Implications for practice and scholarship are considered.

This paper is a theoretical review of the logic of appropriateness. First, it defines what is meant by a logic of appropriateness in the work of March and Olsen and then discusses the dynamics of the logics of appropriateness and consequence. Second, it examines how the rules of appropriateness have developed and changed and discusses the advantages of using the logic of appropriateness. Third, it illustrates some applications of the logic of appropriateness by focusing on studies of public sector reforms and suggests how the logic of appropriateness might be used to understand the handling of COVID-19. Fourth, some of the critiques and elaborations of the logic of appropriateness are discussed. Finally, some conclusions are drawn and needs for future research indicated.

Addresses the standardization of the measurements and the labels for concepts commonly used in the study of work organizations. As a reference handbook and research tool, seeks to improve measurement in the study of work organizations and to facilitate the teaching of introductory courses in this subject. Focuses solely on work organizations, that is, social systems in which members work for money. Defines measurement and distinguishes four levels: nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio. Selects specific measures on the basis of quality, diversity, simplicity and availability and evaluates each measure for its validity and reliability. Employs a set of 38 concepts ‐ ranging from “absenteeism” to “turnover” as the handbook’s frame of reference. Concludes by reviewing organizational measurement over the past 30 years and recommending future measurement reseach.