A notable feature of paradox is recognition that seemingly contradictory terms are inextricably intertwined and interrelated—holding out the hope that something new can be learned from the cognitive tension contained within. Aram has characterized the central concern of the business and society field as the paradox of interdependent relations. Our study argues that this and related paradoxes can be addressed by engaging with others and trying to gain shared insight via an interactive, developmental, exploratory sensemaking process that can inform the (...) governance of stakeholder networks. We advocate multistakeholder learning dialogues as a means for both scholars and practitioners to construct meanings that can guide joint efforts to cope with messy problems that help shape complex, paradoxical relationships within stakeholder networks. (shrink)

The shift in corporate strategy, from vertical integration to strategic alliances, has developed hand in hand with the evolution of organizational structure, from the vertically integrated firm to the network organization. The result has been the elimination of boundaries, more flexible organizations, and a greater interaction among individuals and organizations. On the negative side, the specialization of firms on single areas of competence has resulted in the disaggregation of the value chain and in the disaggregation of ethical and legal responsibility. (...) To illustrate this point, the paper considers some cases, such as the case of the "beer girls" of Southeast Asia, who are used unethically by distributors to sell beer and liquor. To deal with the problem of the disaggregation of ethical responsibility, managers can use organizational culture and ethical values to control the performance of employees and of other organizations. Contemporary developments in business ethics also offer tools for dealing with the problem. For example, "global corporate citizenship," integrated social contracting theory, and stakeholder learning dialogues provide ways of integrating the interests of all stakeholders. The task is now to use these new approaches to create a governance process that incorporates the voices of all stakeholders, especially the voices of those stakeholders that have legitimate and urgent moral claims, but lack the power to establish those claims. (shrink)

This paper applies Wempe’s (2005, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1), 113–135) boundary conditions that define the external and internal logics for contractarian business ethics theory, as a system of argumentation for evaluating current or prospective institutional arrangements for arriving at the “good life,” based on the principles and practices of social justice. It does so by showing that a more dynamic, process-oriented, and pluralist ‘dialogic twist’ to Donaldson and Dunfee’s (2003, ‘Social Contracts: sic et non’, in P. Heugens, H. van Oosterhout (...) and J. Vromen (eds.), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.) pp. 109–126; 1999, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press); 1995, Economics and Philosophy 11(1), 85–112; 1994, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 252–284.) integrated social contracting theory (ISCT) of economic ethics will further develop this promising and influential approach to moral reasoning, ethical decision-making, and stakeholder governance. This evolutionary, interactive learning-based model of ethical norm generation via dialogic stakeholder engagement is particularly appropriate within economic communities that are experiencing value conflict and pressures for institutional change. (shrink)

This paper builds on London and Hart’s critique that Prahalad’s best-selling book prompted a unilateral effort to find a fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Prahalad’s instrumental, firm-centered construction suggests, perhaps unintentionally, a buccaneering style of business enterprise devoted to capturing markets rather than enabling new socially entrepreneurial ventures for those otherwise trapped in conditions of extreme poverty. London and Hart reframe Prahalad’s insight into direct global business enterprise toward “creating a fortune with the base of the pyramid” rather (...) than at the BoP. This shift in language requires a recalibration of strategic focus, we argue, and will necessitate implementation of “moral imagination” to formulate new mental models that can frame the possibility of local entrepreneurs working collaboratively and discursively with development partners drawn from civil society, corporate, and government sectors. Successful partnerships will arise from interactive processes of emergent, co-creative learning within a shared problem domain or “community of practice”. We call attention to three related pluralist framings of situated learning within such communities of practice: decentered stakeholder networks; global action networks; and a focus on “faces and places” as a cognitive lens to humanize and locally situate diverse inhabitants within base of the pyramid partnership projects. (shrink)

Varying conceptions of and purposes for dialogue exist. Recent dialogic theorists and advocates urge exploration of forms of dialogue for learning and applying relational responsibilities within stakeholder networks. A related phenomenon has been the recent emergence of multi-stakeholder dialogues that involve parties significantly affected by major issues or concerns, such as environmental sustainability, that have complex and wide-spread implications. The extent to which these recent multi-stakeholder dialogues assume anything resembling the relationship or caring and the learning potentials of dialogic goals (...) and processes suggested by recent advocates, however, can certainly be questioned. This article explores potential directions for research on enhanced forms of multi-stakeholder dialogues that emphasize goals of dialogic learning, relationship building, and business social responsiveness within a more reflective practice of corporate citizenship. Many issues and questions concerning appropriate antecedents, processes, and outcomes for these enhanced multi-stakeholder dialogues are raised and discussed. (shrink)

In this workshop, a decentered approach to stakeholder theory is proposed, where a shared network problem, rather than a firm, frames stakeholder interactions. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the potential usefulness of adopting a decentered perspective on firm-stakeholder relations. Multi-stakeholder learning dialogues and actor-network theory are introduced as examples of possible theoretical frameworks that allow the adoption of a decentered perspective.

This paper draws upon recent insights into the emergence of issue-focused stakeholder networks which engage in a co-creative process for constructing mutual value. It applies these insights to evaluate Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott’s “21st Century Leadership” effort to impose an ethical supply chain control system in China. The paper concludes that further institutional innovation is needed to realize the potential of 21st century transformational leadership at Wal-Mart and elsewhere.

Teaching sustainability from the “inside-out” means starting at the level of individual students, progressing to organizational responsibilities, and lastly arriving at system-wide responsibilities.

This paper shows how a student honor code can be developed through a process of personal reflection and dialogic inquiry among students in a Business & Society class. This “inside out” learning process enables students to build an honor code organically by identifying shared core values that shape ethical practices, rather than through a top down intervention by faculty or administrators. The shared enterprise of crafting a student honor code becomes an exercise of moral imagination that promotes ethical development through (...) a social contracting process of clarifying and buying in to ethical norms. (shrink)

This workshop brought together people who are interested in or concerned about the course syllabus. Participants’ concerns and discussion centered on issues such as: 1) the purpose of the syllabus; 2) writing objectives for the course; and 3) evaluation of a syllabus.

This interactive teaching workshop explored what it means to “teach from the heart.” It adopted the format of the wisdom circle to ask participants to share peak teaching experiences so that they could reflect on what their stories reveal about their inner selves as teachers. The hope was that, by learning how to speak with their “authentic” voices, participants could gain the insight and courage needed to better connect with their students as co-learners.

This workshop applied the wisdom circle format, based on the discursive rituals and spiritual practices of Native American tribal councils, to encourage IABSmembers to share personal stories that reveal something of their inner self, as they address the challenges and frustrations of their public lives. By speaking with an “authentic voice” and listening respectfully to others in the circle, a remarkable bond of trust and empathetic understanding emerged in a relatively short period. This innovative learning process encourages both personal reflection (...) and the collective search for “common ground” needed to enable joint problem solving. (shrink)

The purpose of our workshop was to call attention to emerging communities of practice where academics and community activists are coming together to learn how to grow slow food networks. One expression of this movement is the creation of local food hubs which can potentially forge global links that scale up to forge a global action network or GAN.

This discussion applies a “scholarship of teaching and learning” (SOTL) perspective with regard to the authors’ introduction of “learning or wisdom circles” inbusiness ethics and business & society courses. Building upon the use of wisdom circles conducted at the 2005 and 2006 International Association of Business and Society (IABS) meetings and descriptions of “circles of trust” or learning circles for college classes found in several academic disciplines, we have set aside significant class time during academic semesters for undergraduate students to (...) participate in these circles or trust-based dialogues. We provide a pedagogical and philosophical rationale for an “inside-out” approach to teaching ethics from the heart, followed by an overview of one of the authors’ planning, implementation, and assessment of student learning circles. In the spirit of SOTL, we seek feedback from peers concerning the perceived effectivenessof these teaching methods as part of a more comprehensive learning strategy for ethicsrelated business courses. (shrink)

This workshop was designed for faculty teaching at both the undergraduate and graduate levels who incorporate or wish to incorporate climate change and sustainability into their teaching repertoire. Following an introduction, the workshop addressed challenges, frameworks, and models for teaching about climate change and sustainability. Breakout sessions then focused on these three aspects of our teaching. The workshop concluded with a sharing of ideas from the breakout sessions and thoughts on moving forward. A resource list for teaching about climate change (...) was discussed at the workshop and is included herein. (shrink)

This workshop reflected on the current state of the Business and Society field and explored viable future directions for research in its related disciplines. The premise was that the field has reached a crossroads in its development, in accordance with the conference theme. To move forward, academic stakeholders should reassess the field’s identity and purpose to continue contributing meaningful work. The field could reframe itself as “Business in Society” to reflect the fact that organizations operate within a social and ecological (...) context. The role of business in society can be thought of differently by examining the memes or core cultural artifacts that shape individuals’ beliefs and relevant narratives about what is expected of business. Through the reframing of the field’s institutional logics, recognizing and revisiting the normative roots of the field, as well, the questions that scholars ask can be revised to adapt to the modern world. (shrink)

This workshop asked: How does business in society move beyond the ambition to develop excellent scholarship that helps make the world a better place to impact? The narrowness of current assessment criteria for ‘impact’ is becoming increasingly evident and criticized. Simultaneously, social media, blog outlets, easy-to-make and post videos and audios, and other means of communicating beyond scholarly audiences have become more prominent. We raised some of the following questions: How can and should, if at all, we as a field (...) move beyond narrow metrics and ‘ambitions’ to have actual impact on the world? How should we think about what impact means in practice? How do we maintain credibility as scholars yet do research that achieves impact that shifts practice, and possibly the world of business in society for the better? What role should social media, blogging, public intellectualism, video and audio production, and teaching play in assessing scholarly impact? (shrink)