Linh Chi Vo

Classification of CSR standards in the light of ISO 26000

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the different classifications of existing reference documents related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to propose a complementary approach of this subject in regard to ISO26000.Design/methodology/approach – The publication of ISO 26000 in November 2010, an International Standard providing guidelines for CSR, seems to have modified the landscape of reference documents by bringing up the issue of legitimacy in the overview of the standards. The paper analyzes four different classifications of existing reference documents related to CSR in order to understand their approach.Findings – The issue of the purpose and legitimacy of tools evoked by ISO 26000 experts enables this paper to propose a complementary approach to existing classifications, by positioning the main tools related to CSR in relation to each other.Originality/value – This article presents a comparison of existing classification of CSR standards in regard to ISO26000.

Women on Corporate Boards of Directors: Theories, Facts and Analysis

In recent years, gender diversity in the boardroom and more generally within organizations, has gained considerable interest in public debate, academic research, government agenda, and corporate strategy. Previously considered as a social issue, gender diversity on boards of directors is increasingly perceived as a value-driver in organizational strategy and corporate governance for several reasons (Terjesen, Sealy and Singh, 2009). Firstly, as institutional investors begin to take into account board diversity, this matter progressively becomes part of their investment practices (Carter, Simkins and Simpson, 2003). Fair employment practices for women are now part of the criteria of many social investment indices (e.g. FTSE4Good or Domini 400 Social Index). Secondly, board diversity is required by important stakeholders, such as customers or employees. The consideration of stakeholders’ preferences, aspirations, and concerns might be beneficial for firms through improved customer loyalty, and employee motivation (e.g. Powell, 1999). Thirdly, recent legislation and diversity initiatives worldwide have pointed out the importance of female representation on boards of directors. For example, the Norwegian government requires companies to appoint at least 40% of women. Spain and France have implemented the same affirmative actions by 2015 and 2017 respectively (Terjesen et al, 2009). Fourthly, board diversity issues have also been discussed by best practices in corporate governance. For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (in the United States) or the Higgs Review (in the United Kingdom) encourages more diversity on corporate boards (Adams and Ferreira, 2009; Dalton and Dalton, 2008). Finally, gender diversity is on companies’ agenda, since more women are in top management positions today. Therefore, the pipeline of female directors and women CEOs is expected to increase in the coming years (Helfat, Harris and Wolfson, 2006).

Collaborating across the researcher-practitioner divide: Introducing John Dewey’s democratic experimentalism

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to contribute to bridging the gap between researchers and practitioners. It does so by comparing the various models of academic-practitioner collaboration and introducing Dewey’s democratic experimentalism as a promising alternative. Design/methodology/approach The conceptual implications are drawn from an analysis and discussion of the literatures in the field of organizational knowledge production, co-production and Deweyan studies. Findings Democratic experimentalism offers a much needed platform for a collaborative relationship between academics and practitioners that leads to knowledge that is rigorous and relevant to practice. Originality/value While the current models of academic-practitioner collaboration provide mechanisms for knowledge co-production, the Dewey’s democratic experimentalism goes further to emphasize the nature of the relationship between academics and practitioners in such common endeavor to ensure that all of them are equal co-creators of knowledge.

Questioning and Organization Studies

In organization studies, there is a cleavage in the literature that separates ‘questions’ and ‘questioning’ at a very fundamental philosophical level. On the one hand, the objective notion of ‘questions’ has already been well addressed. On the other hand, the process of ‘questioning’ remains under-researched. Although questioning the process of questioning is challenging, this is precisely where American pragmatism can be helpful. As we explore in this essay, the forward-looking quality of pragmatist inquiry is what motors the process of questioning. Our pragmatist-inflected argument is that questioning does not always have to serve critique and position building in the organization studies field. Rather, questioning out of curiosity can build new dialogue and open up new methodological avenues. This will help change the habitual ways in which we explore ideas, problems and situations in organization studies as well as lead to more democratic forms of organizing.