This paper argues that social reporting can be an important form of New Governance regulation to achieve stakeholder accountability.Current social reporting practices, however, fall short of achieving stakeholder accountability and actually may work against it. By examining the success and failures of other transparency programs in the United States, we can identify key factors for ensuring the success of social reporting over the long term. These factors include increasing the benefits-to-costs ratios of both the users of the information and the (...) disclosers, and recognizing the importance of the involvement of third-party intermediaries. (shrink)

This paper argues that social reporting can be an important form of New Governance regulation to achieve stakeholder accountability.Current social reporting practices, however, fall short of achieving stakeholder accountability and actually may work against it. By examining the success and failures of other transparency programs in the United States, we can identify key factors for ensuring the success of social reporting over the long term. These factors include increasing the benefits-to-costs ratios of both the users of the information and the (...) disclosers, and recognizing the importance of the involvement of third-party intermediaries. (shrink)

In this article I examine corporate social reporting as a form of New Governance regulation termed “democratic experimentalism.” Due to the challenges of regulating the behavior of corporations on issues related to sustainable economic development, New Governance regulation—which has a focus on decentralized, participatory, problem-solving-based approaches to regulation—is presented as an option to traditional command-and-control regulation. By examining the role of social reporting under a New Governance approach, I set out three necessary requirements for social reporting to be effective: disclosure, (...) dialogue with stakeholders, and the moral development of the corporation. I then assess current social reporting practices against these requirements and find significant problems. In response, I propose one option for solving those problems, and encourage future researchers to consider the demands of these three requirements and the possible trade-offs between them when attempting to find ways to improve social reporting practices. (shrink)

In this article I examine corporate social reporting as a form of New Governance regulation termed “democratic experimentalism.” Due to the challenges of regulating the behavior of corporations on issues related to sustainable economic development, New Governance regulation—which has a focus on decentralized, participatory, problem-solving-based approaches to regulation—is presented as an option to traditional command-and-control regulation. By examining the role of social reporting under a New Governance approach, I set out three necessary requirements for social reporting to be effective: disclosure, (...) dialogue with stakeholders, and the moral development of the corporation. I then assess current social reporting practices against these requirements and find significant problems. In response, I propose one option for solving those problems, and encourage future researchers to consider the demands of these three requirements and the possible trade-offs between them when attempting to find ways to improve social reporting practices. (shrink)

Private firms are uniquely positioned to provide significant relief to the misery that pervades the developing world. Global misery has persisted due to a variety of failures in the provision of relief by nation-states and non-governmental organizations, including corruption and the absence of strong background institutions in the countries in need of aid. In many situations, private firms have a comparative advantage over these entities in the provision of aid. Examples such as Merck and the cure for river blindness show (...) how firms can use their specific competencies and knowledge to relieve misery through Direct Corporate Humanitarian Investment (DCHI). DCHI is legitimized by marketplace morality and is consistent with the role of business within society, including legal dimensions. Shareholders may formally approve a corporation’s DCHI strategy and all stakeholders may act in support of their moral desires with respect to the firm and its DCHI strategy. (shrink)

This article considers what policy reforms may help catalyze corporate commitment to combating corruption. The starting point for this discussion is a voluntary, corporate principles approach to self-regulation. Such an approach should seek to encourage corporations to implement effective compliance and ethics programs and to disclose information related to their anti-corruption activities to relevant stakeholders. Although a corporate principles approach is a private initiative, there is a significant role for the public sector. This article discusses some of the ways that (...) the public sector can support and further the goals of a corporate principles approach to combating corruption. The reforms discussed in this article include amnesty programs for corporations that self-disclose corrupt payments, the use of corporate monitors in the enforcement of anti-corruption laws, expanding the definition of corruption in criminal laws, sustainability reporting indicators related to bribery, and the implementation of multi-stakeholder initiatives to support a corporate principles approach. (shrink)

Traditional approaches to regulating corporate behavior have not, and cannot, produce socially responsible corporations.Although many of the problems with these approaches were identified twenty-five years ago by Christopher Stone, an effective regulatory system still has not been implemented. A model of regulation is needed that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of contexts in which corporations operate, but also makes corporations responsive to the ever-changing societal expectations of propercorporate behavior. To accomplish these goals, a reflexive law regulatory system is (...) needed. Under this approach, corporationsshould be encouraged to engage in corporate social accounting, auditing, and reporting (SAAR). The development of SAAR standardsinformed by reflexive law theory will create a regulatory system that is consistent with the latest thinking in business ethics, includingStakeholder Theory and Integrative Social Contracts Theory. (shrink)

To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme Business versus Ethics?. The authors of these commentaries seek to transcend the age-old separation fallacy :409–421, 1994) that juxtaposes business and ethics/society, posing a forced choice or trade off. Providing a contemporary take on (...) the classical question “if it’s legal is it ethical?”, David Hess explores the role of the law in promoting or hindering stakeholder-oriented purpose and governance structure. Jeffrey Harrison encourages scholars to move beyond the presupposition that businesses are either strategic or ethical and explore important questions at the intersection of strategy and ethics. The proposition that business models might be inherently ethical or inherently unethical in their design is developed by Sheila Killian, who examines business systems, their morality, and who they serve. However, the conundrum that entrepreneurs are either lauded for their self-belief and risk-taking, or loathed for their self-belief and risk-taking, is discussed by M. Tina Dacin and Julia Roloff using the metaphor of taboos and totems. These commentaries seek to explore positions that advocate multiplicity and tensions in which business ethics is not either/or but both. (shrink)

Traditional approaches to regulating corporate behavior have not, and cannot, produce socially responsible corporations.Although many of the problems with these approaches were identified twenty-five years ago by Christopher Stone, an effective regulatory system still has not been implemented. A model of regulation is needed that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of contexts in which corporations operate, but also makes corporations responsive to the ever-changing societal expectations of propercorporate behavior. To accomplish these goals, a reflexive law regulatory system is (...) needed. Under this approach, corporationsshould be encouraged to engage in corporate social accounting, auditing, and reporting (SAAR). The development of SAAR standardsinformed by reflexive law theory will create a regulatory system that is consistent with the latest thinking in business ethics, includingStakeholder Theory and Integrative Social Contracts Theory. (shrink)

In the recent case of Nike v. Kasky both sides argued that their standard for distinguishing commercial speech from political speechwould create the better policy for ensuring accurate and complete disclosure of social information by corporations. Using insights frominformation economics, we argue that neither standard will achieve the policy goal of optimal truthful disclosure. Instead, we argue that the appropriate standard is one of optimal truthful disclosure—balancing the value of speech against the costs of misinformation. Specifically, we argue that an (...) SEC-sanctioned safe harbor available under a closely supervised system for social reporting will bring about optimal truthful disclosure. The scheme is intended to enhance stakeholder confidence in corporate social and political commentary, while at the same time encouraging corporations to provide accurate information in a fair playing field of public debate. (shrink)

The political ideology of neoliberalism is widely recognized as having influenced the organization of national and global economies and public policies since the 1970s. In this article, we examine the relationship between the neoliberal variant of globalization and science. To do so, we develop a framework for sociology of science that emphasizes closer ties among political sociology, the sociology of social movements, and economic and organizational sociology and that draws attention to patterns of increasing and uneven industrial influence amid several (...) countervailing processes. Specifically, we explore three fundamental changes since the 1970s: the advent of the knowledge economy and the increasing interchange between academic and industrial research and development signified by academic capitalism and asymmetric convergence; the increasing prominence of science-based regulation of technology in global trade liberalization, marked by the heightened role of international organizations and the convergence of scientism and neoliberalism; and the epistemic modernization of the relationship between scientists and publics, represented by the proliferation of new institutions of deliberation, participation, activism, enterprise, and social movement mobilization. (shrink)