			Home About us Contact

Corporate Accountability (corporate + accountability)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Law and Criminology	50%
Business, Economics, Finance and Accounting	50%

Selected Abstracts

Global Stakeholders: corporate accountability and investor engagement

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE, Issue 2 2004
Duncan McLaren
In this age of transnational capitalism most victims of corporate malpractice have no means to hold the wrongdoers to account , especially those whose lives are blighted day-in, day-out by the "normal" operations of companies within the letter of the law. This paper argues that corporate social and environmental abuses are rooted in a lack of accountability of corporations to their stakeholders. It explores how governance mechanisms such as corporate engagement by "socially responsible" investors could enhance stakeholder accountability. It identifies and contrasts two paradigms in socially responsible investment engagement, and relates them to voluntary and regulatory responses to corporate abuses. It concludes that the development of standards for stakeholder-oriented engagement and governance could help stimulate effective regulatory measures to protect stakeholder interests. [source]

Developing Codes of Conduct: Regulatory Conversations as Means for Detecting Institutional Change

LAW & POLICY, Issue 4 2007
KARIN JONNERGÅRD
The introduction of a new corporate governance code in Sweden, modeled after prevailing Anglo-Saxon norms of corporate governance, offers the opportunity to investigate global regulatory convergence. Using the metaphor of regulatory space, this article analyzes the positions of the parties who submitted formal responses to the introduction of "The Swedish Code of Corporate Governance,A Proposal from the Code Group." While the globalization of financial markets might forecast unconditional acceptance of the proposed code by business and financial interests, the analysis of who made comments, and what was said, reveals three categorically distinct groups: Swedish business "insiders" connected to the existing institutional framework who opposed changes that would erode traditional division of functions, including collective responsibility for the actions of company boards; "outsiders" (i.e., foreign investors and more marginal Swedish investors) aligned with Anglo-Saxon internationalization of the markets who would change the system of corporate accountability; and the professions (i.e., auditors), who advocated for their professional interests. Of the three groups, Swedish business insiders were most successful in gaining support for their positions. Although international financial and political interests were key to the introduction of the Code in the first place, the article demonstrates how the dynamics of national (local) culture and power structures influence the transfer of regulatory law across jurisdictions. [source]

Human Rights in an Era of Neoliberal Globalization: The Alien Tort Claims Act and Grassroots Mobilization in Doe v. Unocal

LAW & SOCIETY REVIEW, Issue 2 2009
Cheryl Holzmeyer
This article examines a widely publicized corporate accountability and human rights case filed by Burmese plaintiffs and human rights litigators in 1996 under the Alien Tort Claims Act in U.S. courts, Doe v. Unocal, in conjunction with the three main theoretical approaches to analyzing how law may matter for broader social change efforts: (1) legal realism, (2) Critical Legal Studies (CLS), and (3) legal mobilization. The article discusses interactions between Doe v. Unocal and grassroots Burmese human rights activism in the San Francisco Bay Area, including intersections with corporate accountability activism. It argues that a transnationally attuned legal mobilization framework, rather than legal realist or CLS approaches, is most appropriate to analyze the political opportunities and indirect effects of Doe v. Unocal and similar litigation in the context of neoliberal globalization. Further, this article argues that human rights discourse may serve as a common vocabulary and counterhegemonic resource for activists and litigators in cases such as Doe v. Unocal, contrary to overarching critiques of such discourse that emphasize only its hegemonic potentials in global governance regimes. [source]

Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders

BUSINESS ETHICS: A EUROPEAN REVIEW, Issue 1 2001
Tracey Swift
This paper explores the relationship between accountability, trust and corporate reputation building. Increasing numbers of corporations are mobilising themselves to put more and more information out into the public domain as a way of communicating with stakeholders. Corporate social accounting and stakeholder engagement is happening on an unprecedented scale. Rather than welcoming such initiatives, academics have been quick to pick faults with contemporary social auditing and reporting, claiming that in its current form it is not about demonstrating accountability at all, but rather about building corporate reputation. Academics argue that ,accountability should hurt', that if accountability is an enjoyable process, then the organisation isn't doing it right. For organisations that are currently engaging with stakeholders and ostensibly becoming more transparent about their corporate social performance, this kind of critique is likely to be bewildering. This paper argues that central to the notion of accountability and to contemporary social accounting practice is the concept of trust. Accountability is based upon a distrust of corporate management, whereas corporate reputation building is about strategically seeking to establish trust in stakeholder relationships in order to negate formal accountability requirements. Using a split trust continuum, the paper seeks to explain and synthesise what seem to be two very different paradigms of organisational transparency. [source]