Emma Avetisyan (Audencia Business School, France)
Sandrine Stervinou (Audencia Business School, France)
Since the appearance of Edward Freeman’s seminal book Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach in 1984, Stakeholder Theory continues to attract attention from researchers in strategic management, organization theory but also social issues in management. Yet, Freeman’s classical definition of a stakeholder as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (1984: 46), raised several ambiguities and influenced ethicists and business and society scholars to take a special interest in the normative question: Which stakeholders should managers pay attention to? and a related empirical question: Which stakeholders do managers really care about? (Laplume, Sonpar & Litz, 2008). To address the second question and building from approximately 20 different studies on stakeholder identification, Mitchell, Agle, and Wood (1997) developed a model that focuses on "the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims" (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 854). They argue that managers should pay attention to stakeholders possessing one or more of three attributes: power in relation to the firm (i.e., access to relevant resources), are reckoned legitimate (i.e., socially accepted structures or behaviors), and can evoke urgency (i.e., time-sensitive or criticality of claims).
Mitchell and colleagues’ study has substantially contributed to the development of stakeholder research. But it has also been strongly criticised in the past decade. Several studies have made attempts to revise this model (Agle et al., 1999; Driscoll & Starik, 2004; Eesley & Lenox, 2006; Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999; Jawahar & McLaughlin, 2001; Neville, Bell, Whitwell, 2011; Neville & Menguc, 2006; Parent & Deephouse, 2007). Mitchell et al.’s definition of stakeholder claim merely reinforces corporate power while marginalizing the rights and interests of indigenous populations (Banerjee, 2000). Moreover, stakeholder salience as theorized by Mitchell and colleagues does not recognize the ‘fringe stakeholders’ (Hart & Sharma, 2004) -those with less voice, power, and urgency (e.g. indigenous people, the isolated or enslaved, women in some contexts etc). Consequently, Business and Society researchers, as well as practitioners, have been critiqued for ignoring those with less voice and power (e.g., women, non- literate, or indigenous peoples) (Mccarthy & Muthury, 2016).
This track is an invitation for conceptual and empirical papers to challenge some of the foundations of the stakeholder salience and identification framework regarding marginalized, fringe stakeholders and to provide a future research agenda with the aim of better understanding their 1) identities, needs and demands, 2) roles and impacts, and 3) interactions with business.
Agle, B.R., Mitchell, R.K. and Sonnenfeld, J.A., 1999. Who matters to Ceos? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corpate performance, and Ceo values. Academy of management journal, 42(5), pp.507-525.
Banerjee, S.B., 2000. Whose land is it anyway? National interest, indigenous stakeholders, and colonial discourses: The case of the Jabiluka uranium mine. Organization & Environment, 13(1), pp.3-38.
Driscoll, C. and Starik, M., 2004. The primordial stakeholder: Advancing the conceptual consideration of stakeholder status for the natural environment. Journal of business ethics, 49(1), pp.55-73.
Eesley, C. and Lenox, M.J., 2006. Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), pp.765-781.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (2010th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hart, S.L. and Sharma, S., 2004. Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), pp.7-18.
Henriques, I. and Sadorsky, P., 1999. The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial perceptions of stakeholder importance. Academy of management Journal, 42(1), pp.87-99.
Jawahar, I.M. and McLaughlin, G.L., 2001. Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: An organizational life cycle approach. Academy of management review, 26(3), pp.397-414.
Laplume, A.O., Sonpar, K. and Litz, R.A., 2008. Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of management, 34(6), pp.1152-1189.
McCarthy, L. and Muthuri, J.N., 2016. Engaging fringe stakeholders in business and society research: Applying visual participatory research methods. Business & Society, p.0007650316675610.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. T., 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, pp. 853-886.
Neville, B.A., Bell, S.J. and Whitwell, G.J., 2011. Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), pp.357-378.
Neville, B.A. and Menguc, B., 2006. Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(4), pp.377-391.
Parent, M.M. and Deephouse, D.L., 2007. A case study of stakeholder identification and prioritization by managers. Journal of business ethics, 75(1), pp.1-23.
Céline Louche (Audencia Business School, France)
Guilherme Azevedo (Audencia Business School, France)
Andreas Georg Scherer (University of Zurich, Switzerland)
The very nature of sustainability and Corporate Responsibility (CR) deserves interdisciplinary and multi-theoretical attention. While we can see a certain proliferation of theories, approaches and terminologies in CR (Garriga and Melé, 2004), it seems that the paradigmatic (positivism, interpretivism, postmodernism, etc.), theoretical (institutionalism, rational choice, sense making, many more) and disciplinary (sociology, ecology, management, history, political sciences, ethics, law, economics, engineering, psychology, anthropology to mention just a few) questions have not been properly addressed yet.
Some scholars have criticized the poor theoretical foundation of the CR concept (Margolis and Walsh, 2003; Lockett, Moon et al., 2006; Scherer and Palazzo, 2007) and many others have called for broadening the field and creating more space for interdisciplinary and multi-theoretical approaches. For example, Aguilera et al. (2007) argued in favor of a much broader multilevel framework conceptualizing CR not only at the organizational, but, most notably, also at the individual, national and international levels. Matten and Moon (2008) have argued in favor of understanding CR from the perspective of the broader cultural and institutional contexts of national environments and organizational fields. Scherer and Palazzo (2007; 2011) have criticized the positivist mainstream and provided a new theoretical perspective by introducing the notion of CR as a conceptualization of the political role of business in society. More recently Gond et al. (2017) called for developing research across multiple disciplines to better understand the micro-foundations of CR and Scherer and colleagues (2016) argued for taking into account the new societal developments in CR.
Despite the numerous theoretical perspectives used on CR related publications, there is hardly any integration or cross-fertilization between theories (Aguinis and Glavas, 2012). In other words, papers and scholars tend to confine themselves within their own paradigmatic approach and avoid building bridges to other schools of thought. This not only exacerbates the fragmentation of the CR field, but – according to some scholars – may limit the capacity of the CR literature to address the Grand Societal Challenges (George, Howard-Grenville et al., 2016).
Gond and Matten (2007) claim that the limitations of the field lie in its limited appreciation of CR as a social – rather than just corporate – phenomenon and call for pluralizing CR research. This requires developing research in areas that have been neglected due to the functionalist or positivist perspective that dominates CR – and management research in general – and also involves bridging existing perspectives (see e.g. Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Gioia and Pitre, 1990). It is therefore important to generate new research questions by applying insights from adjacent perspectives.
With this track, we would like to facilitate cross-paradigmatic discourse in CR and aim to explore the potentials and limits of interdisciplinary and multi-theoretical approaches in addressing research gaps in the CR field. We invite theoretical and empirical papers that respond to, but are not limited by, the following questions:
Aguinis, H. and A. Glavas (2012). 'What we know and don't know about corporate social responsibility: a review and research agenda', Journal of Management, 38: 932-968.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Garriga, E. and D. Melé (2004). 'Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory.' Journal of Business Ethics 53(1-2): 51-71.
George, G., J. Howard-Grenville, A. Joshi and L. Tihanyi (2016). 'Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research.' Academy of management Journal 59(6): 1880-1895.
Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990). ‘Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building.’ Academy of Management Review, 15: 584-602.
Gond, J.-P., A. E. Akremi, V. Swaen and H. Babu (2017). 'The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A person-centric systematic review.' Journal of Organizational Behavior Online version. DOI: 10.1002/job.2170.
Gond, J. P. and D. Matten (2007). 'Rethinking the business-society interface: beyond the functionalist trap'. Research Paper Series. N. U. B. School. Notthingham.
Lockett, A., J. Moon and W. Visser (2006). 'Corporate social responsibility in management research: focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. .' Journal of Management Studies 43: 115-136.
Margolis, J. D. and J. P. Walsh (2003). 'Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business.' Administrative Science Quarterly 48(2): 268-305.
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo (2007). 'Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective.' Academy of management Review 32(4): 1096-1120.
Scherer, A. G. and G. Palazzo (2011). 'The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. .' Journal of Management Studies 48(4): 899-931.
Scherer, A. G., A. Rasche, G. Palazzo and A. Spicer (2016). 'Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0.' Journal of Management Studies(3): 273.
Camilla Quental (Audencia Business School, France)
Christine Naschberger (Audencia Business School, France)
Nicole Maccali (Higher Institute of Business and Economics, ISAE, Brazil)
Marcia Cassitas Hino (Higher Institute of Business and Economics, ISAE, Brazil)
Diversity is a reality in organizations and can be observed in many different dimensions: Gender, Age, Disability, Sexual Orientation, Ethnic Origin, Religion, etc. Living and working with diversity is building a more inclusive environment. Many actions have already been taken to solve striking inequalities. The reduction of these inequalities can be considered as an important stage of society’s development and as a sign of its maturity. Considering more diverse voices requires innovative behaviors to transform the working environment into a healthier and inclusive workplace. In this context, sustainable organizational actions must be taken now in order to prepare a more equal future, in which many stakeholders who did not have a strong voice in the past are able to express their ideas and potential in businesses and society. In light of the above, it is pivotal to improve the understanding and to promote the reflection on organizational mechanisms which transform diversity into equality through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) actions.
This subject cannot be omitted and discussion shall be teased on this regard. It is important to explore the several aspects of diversity and its management under the perspective of CR in an organizational context.
This track invites conceptual and empirical papers that encompass, but are not limited to, the following aspects of diversity in CR contexts:
Ajao, R., Bozionelos, G., & Quental, C. (2017). Gender, Poverty and Leadership: The Case of the Chibok Girls. In P. M. FLYNN, M. GUDIC & T. K. TAN (Eds.), Beyond the Bottom Line: Integrating sustainability into business and management practice: Greenleaf Publishing / PRME (Principles for Responsible Management Education).
Bleijenbergh, I.; Peters, P.; Poustma, E. (2010). Diversity management beyond business case. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Journal, 29 (5).
Bodenhausen, G. V. (2009) Diversity in the person, diversity in the group: challenges of identity complexity for social perception and social interaction. European Journal of Social Psychology.
Butler, J. (2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Callamard, A. (1999). A methodology for gender-sensitive research. Amnesty International.
Chavez, C. I.; Weisinger, J. Y. (2008). Beyond diversity training: A social infusion for cultural inclusion. Human Resource Management, 47(2).
Hino, Marcia Regina Martelozo Cassitas, and Ajai Prakash. BRICS CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY: CASE OF INDIA AND BRAZIL.
Leduc, B. (2009). Guidelines for gender sensitive research. November, ICIMOD.
Maccali, Nicole, et al. (2015). As práticas de recursos humanos para a gestão da diversidade: a inclusão de deficientes intelectuais em uma federação pública do Brasil." RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 16.2.
Naschberger, C. and Finstad-Milion, C. (2017). How French managers picture their careers: A gendered perspective. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An international journal. Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 401-416.
Naschberger, C., Quental, C. and Legrand, C. (2017), The Leaky Leadership Pipeline in France. A study of career levers and barriers to foster women’s leadership development. C. M. Cunningham and H. M. Crandall (Eds.), Gender, Communication, and the Leadership Gap, (pp. 151-169). Women and Leadership Book Series, Vol. 6. Information Age Publishing. Charlotte: North Carolina.
Naschberger, C. and Ravikumar, M. (2017). Gender Diversity and Corporate Sustainability. Insights from a German Multinational Company. In P. M. Flynn, M. Gudić, and T. K. Tan (Eds.). Beyond the Bottom Line: Integrating the UN Global Compact Into Business Practice. Greenleaf/PRME (Principles for Responsible Management Education) Book Series. pp. 90-103.
Naschberger, C., Good, RT and Galipeau-Konate, B. (2016). Impact of Global Virtual Teams on Cultural Growth. The International Journal of Case Method Research & Application (IJCRA). Volume XXVIII, Issue No. 1, March, p. 31-42.
Quental, C. (2016). Gender Equality and Sustainable Economic Growth: The Case of Women in Public Leadership Positions in Nigeria. Wihihin Jemide Series
Jennifer Goodman (Audencia Business School, France)
Christian Voegtlin (Audencia Business School, France)
Our planet is confronted with grand challenges of sustainability that transcend national borders (Griggs et al., 2013; Whiteman, Walker, & Perego, 2013). The negative effects of these challenges are already felt by a large number of people around the world and can be expected to deteriorate if action is not taken. Examples include poverty, inequality, hunger, access to water, violent conflict, climate change, deforestation, ocean acidification, or the loss of biodiversity, to name just a few. In capitalist societies, based on economic growth and consumption, it is unlikely that demand for products and services will fall to sustainable levels within the natural boundaries of our planet. These challenges of sustainable development are further aggravated by the worldwide population growth and growing purchasing power in developing economies.
In order to guarantee a sustainable future for people and planet, innovation has been hailed as necessary to rethink and improve the sustainability of products and processes (Owen, Bessant, & Heintz, 2013; Owen, Macnaghten, & Stilgoe, 2012); some go as far as saying that sustainability is innovation (Nidumolu et al 2009). However, to foster innovation that addresses grand challenges innovation must be pursued responsibly (Owen et al., 2012; Owen, Stilgoe, et al., 2013). Not only does such innovation need to avoid further harm to people and planet, but sustainability-oriented innovation, that proactively seeks to address grand challenges, is needed. Responsible governance and diverse and inclusive participation of stakeholders are required to facilitate such innovation that avoids harm and does good (Goodman et al., 2017; Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017).
In scholarly research, there is an emerging plurality of voices addressing various approaches to and aspects of innovation for sustainability. Scholars do research related to concepts such as ‘responsible innovation’ (Owen et al., 2012; Stilgoe, Owen, & Macnaghten, 2013), ‘sustainability-oriented innovation’ (Klewitz & Hansen, 2014), ‘social innovation’ (Mulgan, 2006), ‘eco’ or ‘green’ innovation (Karakaya, Hidalgo, & Nuur, 2014; Schiederig, Tietze, & Herstatt, 2012), and ´co-creation´(Dahan, Doh, Oetzel, & Yaziji, 2010). Research also draws on different theories, including stakeholder theory (Harrison, Bosse, & Phillips, 2010); political CSR (Voegtlin & Scherer, 2017); resource-based view (Halme & Korpela, 2014); and the theory of the firm (Siegel, 2009), to name a few.
Similarly, practitioners and policy makers are far from agreeing on what innovation that contributes to a sustainable future is, how to set priorities with regard to which sustainability challenges to address, how to regulate business conduct to avoid future harm or to incentivize businesses to do good, or how to include the multitude of voices and expectations from various stakeholders about firms’ responsibility in driving social or ecological innovation.
The aim of this sub-theme is to bring together various views and voices on innovation for a sustainable future to engage in a discussion about the need for and the drivers, processes and implications of innovation for sustainable development. We explicitly welcome both, empirical and conceptual papers from a broad variety of views. Papers in this track can look into innovation for a sustainable future from different levels of analysis (societal, organizational, individual), different theoretical backgrounds and different methodological approaches.
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2/3), 326-342.
Goodman, J., Korsunova, A., & Halme, M., (2017). Our Collaborative Future: Activities and Roles of Stakeholders in Sustainability-Oriented Innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(6), 731-753.
Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rockstrom, J., Ohman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., . . . Noble, I. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305-307.
Halme, M. & Korpela, M. (2014). Responsible Innovation Toward Sustainable Development in Small and Medium-Size Enterprises: a Resource Perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(8), 547-566.
Klewitz, J. & Hansen, E. G. (2014). Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 57-75.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations, 1(2), 45-162.
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K. & Rangaswami, M.R. (2009). Why Sustainability is Now the Key Driver of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, September.
Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74.
Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33(0), 392-399.
Owen, R., Bessant, J., & Heintz, M. (2013). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Sussex: Wiley.
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760.
Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management - an exploratory literature review. R&D Management, 42(2), 180-192.
Siegel, D. S. (2009). Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(3), 5-16.
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible Innovation and the Innovation of Responsibility: Governing Sustainable Development in a Globalized World. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 227-243.
Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary Boundaries: Ecological Foundations for Corporate Sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307-336.
Martin Fougère (Hanken School of Economics, Finland)
Umesh Mukhi (Audencia Business School, France)
Camilla Quental (Audencia Business School, France)
Nikodemus Solitander (Hanken School of Economics, Finland)
The recent 10th anniversary of UN PRME (United Nations Principles of Responsible Management Education) last July marks an important chapter in the emergence of and emphasis on responsible Management Education. Business schools, like many other organizations, are subject to pressure from institutions and society to “walk the talk” in order to create responsible managers as well as to contribute to resolve complex societal issues.
As a UN-driven initiative, UN PRME seeks to align business school education with UN sustainability governance processes. Thus, academics who champion responsible management education the world around have been increasingly incorporating in their teaching an explicit discussion of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Integrating the SDGs into business school education is crucial for many reasons, and as faculty members in PRME signatory business schools we take this integration to heart. Yet, if we do take PRME and our role as responsible management academics seriously, it is also our duty, in the way we implement this integration in our curriculum, to open the SDGs up for discussion with our students, to subject the SDGs to the same critical thinking we apply and expect from students on all other topics, and more generally to problematize the weaknesses and the challenges posed by the SDGs. It is our contention that only this way will the incorporation of the SDGs in our curricula transform our business schools in a desired, sustainable direction.
Engaging with, and/or problematizing the SDGs and responsible management education may entail various possibilities such as reflections from business school educators who have been teaching the SDGs and/or designing curricula based on SDGs, to reflect on and share their experiences of engaging with the SDGs. How have the SDGs facilitated their courses on sustainability-related themes? What challenges have they faced in teaching about the SDGs? What types of student reactions has SDG teaching elicited? What critiques have been expressed? What ideas for a potentially improved sustainable development agenda have emerged?
Thus, the aim of this track is to invite a multitude of empirical and theoretical perspectives regarding actors working in responsible management education. We invite critical as well as inspirational contributions on topics such as (but not limited to):
Claire Champenois (Audencia Business School, France)
Vincent Lefebvre (Audencia Business School, France)
Miruna Radu-Lefebvre (Audencia Business School, France)
Kathleen Randerson (Audencia Business School, France)
CSR and CR research are situated at the interface of business and society. This subtheme intends to create a dialogue between CSR/CR and Entrepreneurship research.
Recent attempts were made in entrepreneurship research to contextualize the entrepreneurship phenomenon (Welter, 2011), especially by considering it as a social activity embedded in society (for example, Watson, 2013; Johannisson, 2011; Spigel, 2016).
Different perspectives were developed to give an account of the inter-relatedness between entrepreneurs and actors from their environment. For example, the development of networks and the use of social capital by entrepreneurs have been widely studied (Jack, 2010; Keating, Geiger, and McLoughlin 2014). Practice-based perspectives are on the rise in entrepreneurship research: they consider entrepreneurial practices as socially situated and organized and, thus, invite to study the “organizing context”, cf. Johannisson 2011) in which entrepreneurs act (Gartner et al., 2016). Family, for example, has been identified as an environmental factor that influences entrepreneurial behaviors of family members, the family, and the family business (Bettinelli, Fayolle and Randerson, 2014). Public policies and incubators also influence and structure entrepreneurial behaviors (Champenois, 2012).
Some scholars have claimed that entrepreneurship research could and should be a tool for shaping social and economic equity (Welter et al., 2016), including issues of empowerment and emancipation. They invite to consider the “mundane”, everyday presence of entrepreneurship in society (Welter et al., 2016; Steyaert and Katz, 2004).
In the context of this subtheme, we propose to investigate further the link between entrepreneurs/ entrepreneurial practices and society.
This subtheme invites conceptual and empirical papers that respond to, but are not limited by, the following questions:
What is the impact of entrepreneurship on society (not only through job creation and growth):
How society impacts entrepreneurship:
What new lenses can be offered to study entrepreneurship:
How entrepreneurs manage the multiple voices of their environment, of their stakeholders (financing actors, public authorities, universities, incubators, coaches, family members, society at large):
How we can give voice to unheard actors in entrepreneurship research:
How to encourage different voices in Entrepreneurship Education:
Bettinelli, C., Fayolle, A., & Randerson, K. (2014). Family entrepreneurship: a developing field. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 10(3), 161-236.
Champenois (2012). How Can a Cluster Policy Enhance Entrepreneurship? Evidence from the German ‘Bioregio’ Case. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 30 (5), pp. 796 - 815
Jack, S.L. (2010). Approaches to studying networks: implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing. 25, 1, p. 120-137.
Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), pp 135–150
Keating, A., Geiger, S. and McLoughlin, D. (2014). Riding the Practice Waves: Social Resourcing Practices During New Venture Development. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38: 1207–1235.
Spigel, B. (2016). The relational organisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49-72
Steyaert, C. and Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: geographical, discursive and social dimensions Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,16 (3)
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship—conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, 35(1), 165-184.
Welter, F., Baker, T., Audretsch, D. B. and Gartner, W. B. (2017). Everyday Entrepreneurship—A Call for Entrepreneurship Research to Embrace Entrepreneurial Diversity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 311–321.
Marco Formentini (Audencia Business School, France)
Paolo Taticchi (Imperial College Business School, UK)
Many of today’s environmental and social crises are rooted in unsustainable patterns of economic and industrial development. As a consequence of this, driven by regulation and market factors, and with the overall goal of building competitive advantage, companies are developing new and diversified forms of corporate sustainable strategies (CSSs) (Amini and Bienstock, 2014).
Business sustainability is defined in reference to the so-called triple-bottom-line (TBL) as “the ability to conduct business with a long-term goal of maintaining the well-being of the economy, environment and society” (Hassini et al., 2012). This calls for completely re-thinking business models not only at the corporate level, but also at the supply chain level and this explains the growing interest in industry and academy for sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).
Within this context, scholars dedicated great attention to governance mechanisms (GMs) (Gimenez and Sierra, 2013) as a way to implement and execute CSSs. We define GMs as practices, actions, initiatives and processes used by the focal firm to manage relationships with 1) internal functions and departments and 2) their direct supply chain members and indirect stakeholders with the aim of successfully implementing their CSSs. When implementing GMs for SSCM, there is evidence that collaboration among supply chain members plays a key role (Brockhaus et al., 2013) and that GMs can be formulated with different levels of formalisation (Alvarez et al., 2010).
Nevertheless, there is still sparse and limited empirical evidence of linkages between CSSs and GMs for SSCM. Recently, Formentini and Taticchi (2016) have explored these issues relying on case studies and using contingency theory, the strategic alignment perspective and the resource-based view of organisations to present findings. This work has highlighted the need of further research to develop and build new insights on GMs to be used in SSCM and called for theory-testing through more quantitative methodologies. Indeed, it is also timely to include the plurality of different voices from the supply chain, since the majority of studies is mainly focused on focal companies managing the supply network, missing to include other perspectives.
In line with Formentini and Taticchi (2016), we propose a track to advance research in this area, focusing on the following key objectives - centered around the CR3+ themes (1) the voices of actors often unheard in CR, and (2) how to manage multiple voices in business.
Key objectives of this proposed track
Alvarez, G., Pilbeam, C., Wilding, R., (2010). Nestlé Nespresso AAA sustainable quality program: an investigation into the governance dynamics in a multi-stakeholder supply chain network. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 15 (2), 165-182.
Amini, M., Bienstock, C.C., (2014). Corporate sustainability: an integrative definition and framework to evaluate corporate practice and guide academic research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 76, 12-19.
Brockhaus, S., Kersten, W., Knemeyer, A.M., (2013). Where Do We Go From Here? Progressing Sustainability Implementation Efforts Across Supply Chains. Journal of Business Logistics. 34 (2), 167-182.
Formentini, M., & Taticchi, P., (2016). Corporate sustainability approaches and governance mechanisms in sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 1920-1933.
Gimenez, C., Sierra, V., (2013). Sustainable Supply Chains: Governance Mechanisms to Greening Suppliers. Journal of Business Ethics. 116 (1), 189-203.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., Searcy, C., (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics, 140 (1), 69-82.
Junior, R. M., Best, P. J., & Cotter, J. (2014). Sustainability reporting and assurance: a historical analysis on a world-wide phenomenon. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(1), 1-11.
Morali, O., & Searcy, C. (2013). A review of sustainable supply chain management practices in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(3), 635-658.
Pagell, M., Fugate, B., & Flynn, B. B. (2017). From the editors‐Introducing JSCM's first Emerging Discourse Incubator for 2018/19. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 53, 76–77.
United Nations (2017). www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/
William Keeton (La Trobe Business School, Australia)
1.0 Introduction: Around the world, there is an increasing interest in the opportunities and challenges for more research that advances our understanding of CSR and community engagement programs within all types of organisations. Managers could be criticized for having a “muddling through” approach to CSR and community engagement programs with regard to planning and decision-making when trying to balance stakeholder’s expectations. The need to understand these planning and decision-making process requires in-depth field studies. The characterisation of a successful community engagement program depends on the view of the participants, context and definition as to what constitutes success. This is particularly important when it comes to differentiating between the stakeholder and the organisational decision-maker’s expected outcomes and goals.
1.1. Advancing the research: Community engagement may be viewed as a specific subcategory of CSR activities. This CR3+ track would benefit from further research and discussion with those specifically interested in the practical challenges associated in planning and decision-making within the area of community engagement and stakeholder management. A myriad of issues face managers as they work to achieve the goals and outcomes of their organisations. Failing to take into account the influence that multiple stakeholders may play in the successful outcome of these interactions could jeopardise any plans for success. Managers risk complete failure if they ignore or marginalise stakeholders. Any number of possible research designs could advance this field (i.e. case study research could highlight specific cases that would provide practical insight for managers working to avoid failure and achieve success).
2.0 Managing multiple voices by businesses and entrepreneurs: As per this track stream, participants present and discuss the complex tasks of planning and decision-making faced by business managers and entrepreneurs as they navigate multiple demands from different stakeholders. This stream considers practical processes, and theoretical models, which have been developed to aid and facilitate in our understanding and make an impact on the broader CSR and community engagement research. Key researchers such as Michael Porter’s recent work in “shared values” and seminal work from R. Edward Freeman’s stakeholder management, highlight the importance for this area of study. Hence questions and topics which may appeal to this track stream might include:
2.1 How do managers approach the planning process for CSR and community engagement?
2.2 How do managers and decision-makers identify key stakeholders?
2.3 How do stakeholders influence the decisions of managers: what tactics are they most likely to employ?
2.4 How do managers achieve a collaborative planning process with stakeholders in order to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes?
2.5 How do managers deal with “wicked problems” in the planning and decision-making process?
2.6 How is power obtained and used by all parties (both managers and stakeholders) in the community engagement process?
2.7 What defines a community and how to engage it?
2.8 What happens if consensus is not possible and not practical in every community engagement outcome?
2.9 Who bears the cost of CSR and community engagement programs?
2.10 How does the double bottom line get measured in CSR and community engagement?
3.0 The track stream proposal: Themes for CSR community engagement: Processes in planning and decision-making has a much wider appeal and is growing. CSR studies will benefit from research within the context of community engagement and stakeholder management in the foreseeable future. Active research will benefit from a variety of case studies in a variety of organisational contexts. Organisations both public and private as well as not-for-profits are forced to do better in this area and research will lay a guiding foundation for managers working to improve the planning and decision-making around CSR and community engagement.
Dominique Billier (Audencia Business School, France)
Carole Le Rendu (Audencia Business School, France)
An important principle in art is the notion of freedom of expression. This allows artists to be provocative and sometimes transgress moral norms. Does it mean that artists are above and beyond any moral standards? Does it make them irresponsible actors? Or does it provide them with a unique capacity to create change in our society and question (sometimes taken for granted) practices, believes and behaviors?
Already in 1997, the art historian, Jean Clair, raised similar questions with regard to the avant-garde artists who were determined to revolutionize the art. Today, the question can be asked to the contemporary artists: is the artistic freedom of expression conflicting with or entering into contradiction with artists and art involvement in society?
A lot has been written on the corporate responsibilities. If the focus has been essentially on companies (large or small), little has been written on the social or political responsibilities of artists. Following Jacques Rancière (2011), we claim that artists do play an active social and political role and have responsibilities towards the society. However, if it is easy for the artist to assume its responsibility for her/his work and the eventually immediate and direct scandals it may provoke, it remains more difficult to consider and comprehend the broader societal responsibility of the artist. How can the artist conceive and assume her/his social responsibility? What responsibility does she/he have?
Some studies have explored the relationship between artists and society or the companies such as Nicolas Bourriaud (1998) and Ariane Berthoin-Antal et la. (2016) on "organizational aesthetics". Those studies have highlighted that the interaction between artists and society is not neutral.
Other scholars from the sociology of art, such as Raymonde Moulin (1992) Pierre Bourdieu (1979) and, more recently Nathalie Heinrich (1998) and Pierre-Michel Menger, (2003), have studied already for many years the way art and artists are imbricated in and with society. Sociologists and geographers such as Sharon Zukin (1989), Catherine Bidou-Zachariasen (2008,) and David B. Cole (1987) have also shown the role of artists in local communities and more broadly in the urban space.
Building from those studies, we argue that artists are not passive actors in society. They have the capacity to recreate social bonds where it tends to disappear. They can encourage the development of the critical mind. And more broadly, they call for greater autonomy of the individual. Therefore, we would like to argue that through their work and experiences, they act with and within the society and the organizations.
With this track, we want to explore artists’ actions in and on society but also their limits. We invite empirical, theoretical but also critical perspectives to question the relationship between artists and the notion of societal responsibility.
Bidou-Zachariasen Catherine, Poltorak Jean-François, « Le travail de la gentrification :les transformations sociales d’un quartier parisien populaire », Espaces et Sociétés, n° 132-133, 2008, /1-2 , pp . 197-224.
Bourdieu Pierre, La distinction, Paris, Gallimard, 1979
Bouriaud Nicolas, L’Esthétique relationnelle, Paris, La République des idées, 1998
Clair Jean, La Responsabilité de l’artiste, Paris Gallimard, 1997
Cole, David B. « Artists and Urban development « , Geographical Review, vol. 77, n° 4, octobre 1987
Heinrich Nathalie, Le Triple jeu de l’art contemporain, Paris éditions de Minuit, 1998
Menger Pierre-Michel, Le portrait de l’artiste en travailleur, Paris, La République des idées, 2003
Moulin Raymonde, L’Artiste, l’Institution et le Marché, Paris, Flammarion, 1992
Rancière Jacques, Aïsthesis, Paris, Galilée, 2011
Sköldberg Johansson, Woodilla U, Berthoin-Antal Ariane, Artistic interventions in organizations: Research, Theory and practice, 2016, London Routledge
Zukin Sharon, Loft living: culture and capitalism urban change: Routgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1989