1,720,969 research outputs found
Justice and Corporate Governance: New Insights from Rawlsian Social Contract and Sen’s Capabilities Approach
No full textBy considering what we identify as a problem inherent in the ‘nature of the firm’—the risk of abuse of authority—we propound the conception of a social contract theory of the firm which is truly Rawlsian in its inspiration. Hence, we link the social contract theory of the firm (justice at firm’s level) with the general theory of justice (justice at society’s level). Through this path, we enter the debate about whether firms can be part of Rawlsian theory of justice showing that corporate governance principles enter the “basic structure.” Finally, we concur with Sen’s aim to broaden the realm of social justice beyond what he calls the ‘transcendental institutional perfectionism’ of Rawls’ theory. We maintain the contractarian approach to justice but introduce Sen’s capability concept as an element of the constitutional and post-constitutional contract model of institutions with special reference to corporate governance. Accordingly, rights over primary goods and capabilities are (constitutionally) granted by the basic institutions of society, but many capabilities have to be turned into the functionings of many stakeholders through the operation of firms understood as post-constitutional institutional domains. The constitutional contract on the distribution of primary goods and capabilities should then shape the principles of corporate governance so that at post-constitutional level anyone may achieve her/his functionings in the corporate domain by exercising such capabilities. In the absence of such a condition, post-constitutional contracts would distort the process that descends from constitutional rights and capabilities toward social outcomes
Public Sector Reform in Italian Higher Education: The Governance Transformation of the Universities — A Comparison Among Perceptions of Rectors and Department Chairs
Full text linkNew public management (NPM) has dominated the reforms in the higher education sector and the academic discussion on how universities should be governed since the 1980s. Besides, the introduction of accountability and efficiency measures in the form of performance measurement and pay-for-performance scheme, a key debated aspect of NPM is the strengthening of the role of boards and the introduction of a more firm-like governance structure. Much work is still needed to evaluate the implementation of NPM reforms in the university domain, particularly with respect to the internal governance changes. Besides formal rules, perceptions of key actors on their institutional environment play a major role in investigating university governance. This article uses a unique dataset on Italian universities to illustrate the internal governance patterns that emerged after the 2010 reform and critically analyses the differences in the perceptions of rectors and department chairs providing insights for both academic and policymakers
Direttrici e i Direttori di Dipartimento in un’Università in transizione
No full textThe Italian public higher education system was involved in 2010, with Law No. 240, in a reform process inspired by New Public Management, which introduced changes in the governance, i.e., in the decision-making process, at University and Departmental level. The aim of this work is to analyze the Department Chairs’ perceptions on the decision-making process after the reform and on their role. The perceptions of those involved are an excellent indicator of how decision-making processes are made and, in particular, they are better able to account, than the formal written rules, for the power relationships that characterizes governance structures. Besides the new governance, it is also interesting to check whether there are gender differences with regard to the perceptions on governance structures and on Department Chairs’ role depending on whether s/he is a woman or a man. We collect data with a research carried out in 2015 sending a questionnaire to all the Department Chairs of Italian Universities. In general, the decision-making process in the post-reform does not seem to implement a pure model of New Public Management, since verticalization appears contained and checks and balances are consistent. At the same time, the data reveals some interesting (even if limited) gender differences, both in governance structures and in the assessment of Department Chairs’ role
Between legislative reform and institutional adaptation. Theory and empirical evidence on the governance of Italian universities
No full textOver the last decades, the political and academic discussion on university governance has been characterized by two different perspectives. On the one hand, New Public Management: according to this approach universities are seen as institutions that operate in a quasi-market in which political authority appoints external agents, and introduces a variety of incentives aimed at guaranteeing that universities’ aims and interests, and those of the individuals working for them are in line with the established goals. On the other hand, a neo-institutional perspective which is primarily based on the consideration that good higher education requires a combination of very different types of resources and competencies. According to this perspective universities are seen as publicly regulated institutions, whose main aim is to enhance the cooperation among the different components of the tertiary system, and balance the interests and investments of all relevant stakeholders. Against this backdrop, the article discusses reform law 30 December 2010, no. 240 which provided a comprehensive overhaul of Italian universities’ governance. The authors use a unique dataset on Italian universities to investigate what are the actual governance patterns that emerged from the reform, and that do not necessarily reflect the formal provisions uniformly. The evidence shows that, despite a common regulatory framework, Italian universities have implemented quite different models of governance. Such models range from a highly vertical to a shared governance model. Furthermore, the data confirm our hypothesis that in many (although not in all) universities the stakeholders that control crucial cognitive resources and investments in the university tend to introduce rebalancing measures in order to prevent opportunistic behavior that would otherwise expropriate their investments
Organizing for transformative innovation policies: The role of social enterprises. Theoretical insights and evidence from Italy
Full text linkTransformative innovation policies can provide systemic solutions to socio-environmental challenges because of their "experimental", "reflexive" and "inclusive" character. We contend that social enterprises can act as catalysts for transformative innovation for the geographically and socially marginalized. Thus, including social enterprises in transformative innovation policies can mitigate the negative effects of innovation-based growth, making policies more socially and geographically inclusive. Following a syncretic approach to the literatures on trans -formative innovation policies and social entrepreneurship, this paper identifies the key dimensions of social enterprises' transformative innovation potential: directionality (i.e., social goals as the purpose of innovation); social and geographical inclusiveness (i.e., the inclusion of marginalized areas and individuals in the provision of goods or services); reflexivity (in terms of participatory governance and monitoring the achievement of goals); and experimental character (in terms of establishing partnerships with heterogeneous actors). We then assess this capacity through an exploratory cluster analysis of Italian social enterprises. We identify three distinct groups that suggest a range of entrepreneurial approaches from largely transformative to not at all. The transformative innovation readiness of social enterprises has implications for policymakers seeking to undertake pilot schemes and implement actions that support an appropriately transformative innovation ecosystem
Assessing corporate governance through Amartya Sen’s capability approach
No full textThe hierarchical nature of the firm affects stakeholders’ well-being. This is our main motivation in analysing the firm through the perspective of Sen’s capability approach—a social justice theory for the evaluation of any institution, organization or policy aimed at providing well-beings. In order to work out the inherent relation between the capability approach and the economic analysis of the law, we show the strict link between capabilities and entitlements, which we call capabilities-as-entitlements, and investigate if and how corporate governance, i.e., the configuration of entitlements in a firm, enhances or diminishes capabilities of stakeholders. We underline the role that the public use of reason and a sufficientarian criterion play in mitigating conflicts among stakeholders, permitting the reach of a balance amongst all of them and the identification of the capabilities that allow stakeholders to exercise democratic citizenship in corporation. We build several indexes that are able to measure and compare capabilities developed within and between corporate governance regimes
Mission, governance, and accountability of benefit corporations: Toward a commitment device for achieving commercial and social goals
Full text linkBenefit corporations (BCs) are profit-with-purpose organizations regulated by a legal framework for establishing explicit commitments in terms of multi-stakeholder governance and accountability structures. We comprehensively analyze the theoretical alignment of four concepts (ownership, mission, governance, and accountability) to explain the legal rationale for BCs' unique corporate form. However, the boundaries of BC legislation are blurry, leaving them open to top-down governance arrangements and weak accountability. To explore this ambiguity, this paper investigates whether BCs implement a de facto (i.e., beyond the letter of the law) multi-stakeholder structure with governance models and downward accountability mechanisms that balance different stakeholders' interests, instead of focusing only on shareholder profits. This further highlight the soft boundaries imposed by the BC regulatory framework and suggests that more work is needed to explore the relationship between governance models that differently balance stakeholders' claims and the firm's social performance
Exploring Tension in Hybrid Organizations in Times of Covid-19 Crisis. The Italian Benefit Corporations’ experience
Full text linkThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused an unprecedented social and
economic crisis, not least for hybrid organisations, as they must
manage the tension arising from their dual mission to create
social and economic value. Building on a theoretical framework
for hybrid tension, our work contextualises how tensions emerge
and are managed in hybrid organisations when they are exposed to
exogenous shocks. We address the following research question.
How have hybrid organisations managed the tensions arising from
their dual purpose during the COVID-19 crisis? Our focus is on
Italian benefit corporations, which are organisations combining
social and economic objectives. We conduct two focus groups with
12 Italian benefit corporations. Our findings show the emergence of
four constructs that capture the responses to the COVID-19 crisis:
social and/or commercial orientation; technological characterisation;
internal and external stakeholder relationship; openness to changes.
We explain the relationship of these constructs via a framework of
performing, organising, learning, and belonging tensions
- …
