Corporate Social Responsibility affects Corporate Governance as it stretches the accountability of companies beyond its traditional boundaries. This however may conflict with the corporate objective of maximizing stockholder wealth. The paper provides an overview of various academic theories and corporate attitudes on this issue and discusses the merits and disadvantages of the two main governance modes: the stockholder mode and the stakeholder mode.
The external expectations of organizational accountability force organizational leaders to find solutions and answers in organizational (and information) governance to assuage the feelings of doubt and unease about the behaviour of the organization and its employees that continuously seem to be expressed in the organizational environment. Organizational leaders have to align the interests of their share– and stakeholders in finding a balance between performance and accountability, individual and collective ethical approaches, and business ethics based on compliance, based on integrity, or both. They have to integrate accountability in organizational governance based on a strategy that defines boundaries for rules and routines. They need to define authority structures and find ways to control the behaviour of their employees, without being very restrictive and coercive. They have to implement accountability structures in organizational interactions that are extremely complex, nonlinear, and dynamic, in which (mostly informal) relational networks of employees traverse formal structures. Formal processes, rules, and regulations, used for control and compliance, cannot handle such environments, continuously in ‘social flux’, unpredictable, unstable, and (largely) unmanageable. It is a challenging task that asks exceptional management skills from organizational leaders. The external expectations of accountability cannot be neglected, even if it is not always clear what is exactly meant with that concept. Why is this (very old) concept still of importance for modern organizations?In this book, organizational governance, information governance, and accountability are the core subjects, just like the relationship between them. A framework is presented of twelve manifestations of organizational accountability the every organization had to deal with. An approach is introduced for strategically govern organizational accountability with three components: behaviour, accountability, and external assessments. The core propositions in this book are that without paying strategic attention to the behaviour of employees and managers and to information governance and management, it will be extremely difficult for organizational leaders to find a balance between the two objectives of organizational governance: performance and accountability.
Understanding the decision-making process of a boardroom is one of the most fascinating parts of organizational research. We are all interested in power games, team dynamics and how the external environment could influence the decision of directors. One of the important buzzwords of today is “good governance” and many boards face a lot of societal pressure to implement best practices of governance. It goes beyond regulatory requirements and boards need to take a different perspective on integrating governance codes and best practices in their organizations. In this study, we focused on the role of individual directors in developing organizational responses to that pressure. More specifically, we looked at how directors’ own cognitive frames of governance influence the way boards choose best practices.
MULTIFILE
In De Haagse Hogeschool werken de lectoraten vanuit faculteiten, dicht bij het onderwijs, nauw samen in zeven kenniscentra. Deze kenniscentra zijn de verbinding tussen de regio, met zijn actuele thema’s (vaak gelinkt aan het missiegedreven innovatiebeleid van de overheid) en het onderwijs en onderzoek van de Haagse Hogeschool. De zeven kenniscentra van De Haagse Hogeschool zijn: Cybersecurity, Digital Operations & Finance, Global & Inclusive Learning, Global Governance, Health Innovation, Governance of Urban Transitions & Mission Zero. Deze kenniscentra zijn in opstartende fase en worden ondersteund door centrale diensten. De Haagse Hogeschool kiest voor versterking van de onderzoeksinfrastructuur die centraal staat in de kenniscentra: ‘de Haagse Labs’. Praktijkgericht onderzoek vindt in deze omgevingen plaats als een vervlechting van onderwijs (studenten en docenten), onderzoek, het werkveld en maatschappelijke partners. Sommige labs hebben een tijdelijk karakter, andere, zoals de hogeschool zelf, zijn continu een omgeving waarbinnen onderzoek gedaan wordt. De Haagse Labs zijn bij uitstek de plek waarin nauw samengewerkt wordt met andere hogescholen of kennisinstellingen (veelal zijn ze ontstaan uit een samenwerking zoals The Green Village, of het Basalt SmartLab). De keuze voor de Haagse Labs geeft verdieping aan regionale samenwerkingen en bijbehorende speerpunten. De huidige, meer informele inrichting, kan met behulp van Impuls 2020, verder structuur krijgen, leiden tot een betere kennisdeling tussen de kenniscentra heen en de regionale netwerkvorming versterken. Naast het formaliseren van ‘de Haagse Labs’ zetten we in op zichtbaarheid van de Hogeschool in de regio door te investeren in communicatie (denk bijvoorbeeld aan het opzetten van podcasts, en digitale middelen in Corona-tijd). Die profilering van ons onderzoek wordt verder ondersteunt door een traject rond visievorming en strategische positionering. De kenniscentra zullen begeleid worden om einde 2021 een visie te ontwikkelen met bijbehorende acties om de rol van de hogeschool in de regio te versterken.
The purpose of this project was to create a roadmap with selected mechanisms to assist destination management organisations to optimize the benefits generated by tourism for their destination communities and ensure that it is shared equitably. By providing tools to identify and address inequality in terms of access to the benefits and value tourism generates, it is envisaged that a more equitable tourism model can be implemented leading to the fair distribution of benefits in destination communities, potentially increasing the value for previously excluded or underserved groups. To produce the roadmap, the study team will explore the range of challenges that hinder the equitable distribution of tourism-induced benefits in destinations as well as the enabling factors that influence the extent to which this is achieved. The central question the research team has set out to answer is the following: What does an equitable tourism model look like for destination communities?Societal issueHowever, while those directly involved in tourism will gain the most, the burden of hosting visitors is widely felt by local communities. This imbalance has, unsurprisingly, sparked civil mobilisations and protests in destinations around the world. It’s clear that placemaking and benefit-sharing must be part of the future of destination management to maintain public support. This project addressed issues around equity (environmental, economic, spatial, cultural and tourism experience). In line with the intentions set out in the CELTH Agenda Conscious Destinations.Benefit to societyBased on 25 case studies around 40 mechanisms were identified that can grow or better distribute the value from tourism, so that more people in destination communities benefit. These mechanisms are real-world practices already in use. DMOs and NTOs can consider introducing the mechanisms that best fit their destination context, pulling levers such as: taxes and revenue sharing, business incubation and training, licencing and zoning, community enterprises and volunteering, and product development..This report also outlines a pathway to an Equity-Driven Management (EDM) approach, which is grounded in participatory decision-making principles and aims to create a more equitable tourism system by strengthening the hand of destination governance and retaining control of local resources.Collaborative partnersNBTC, the Travel Foundation, Destination Think, CELTH, ETFI, HZ.
Cycling booms in many Dutch cities. While smart cycling innovations promise to increase cycling’s modal share in the (peri-)urban transport system even further, little is understood of their impact or cost and benefit. The “Smart Cycling Futures (SCF)” program investigates how smart cycling innovations ─ including ICT-enabled cycling innovations, infrastructures, and social innovations like new business models ─ contribute to more resilient and liveable Dutch urban regions. Cycling innovations benefit urban regions in terms of accessibility, equality, health, liveability, and decreasing CO2-emissions when socially well embedded. To facilitate a transition to a sustainable future that respond to pressing issues, the SCF research project runs urban living labs in close collaboration with key stakeholders to develop transdisciplinary insights in the conditions needed for upscaling smart-cycling initiatives. Each living lab involving real-world experiments responds to the urgent challenges that urban regions and their stakeholders face today. The proposed research sub-programs focus on institutional dynamics, entrepreneurial strategies, governance and the socio-spatial conditions for smart cycling. Going beyond analysis, we also assess the economic, social, and spatial impacts of cycling on urban regions. The research program brings together four Dutch regions through academic institutions (three general and one applied-science universities); governmental authorities (urban and regional); and market players (innovative entrepreneurs). Together, they answer practice-based questions in a transdisciplinary and problem-oriented fashion. Research in the four regions generates both region-specific and universally applicable findings. Finally, SCF uses its strong research-practice network around cycling to co-create the research and run an outreach program.
