Human Systems Management

Both Japan and Korea have suffered painful economic recession and a series of corporate misconducts and scandals over the last decade. In the meantime, people's interests in business ethics and corporate social responsibility have remarkably increased. This study examines (1) Japanese and Korean managers' perceptions of business ethics, (2) the similarities and differences between the two countries in comparison with the US, and (3) the evolution of business ethics over the ten-year period. The study reveals that Japanese and Korean companies have made remarkable progress in making systematic measures to establish corporate ethics, but the managers' perceptions of ethics in both countries have not changed significantly over the last decade. The study also shows that Korean managers' way of perceiving ethics is a specific mixture of those of the US and Japanese managers.

Corporate governance has been one of the major issues studied by academicians in management and economics. Recent problems faced by various companies in certain economic systems forced the widespread adoption and implementation of corporate governance logic and principles by various types of companies. This study describes the successful implementation of corporate governance (CG) principles by Dogan Yayın Holding (DYH) which is Turkey's leading media-entertainment conglomerate. The company's success in implementing the CG principles led to the improvement of its company image, gaining prestige in the eyes of foreign institutional investors, and improving its internal and external control mechanisms. Considering all of these implementations, one can realize the successful involvement of DYH in pursuing good CG practices in Turkey.

In recent years many studies on intellectual capital measurement and reporting systems (ICMRSs) have been carried out. In this paper, a longitudinal case study, of a multi-utility Italian company, Aimag S.p.A., is illustrated. The case shows that ICMRS cannot be simply considered an accounting phenomenon but one that promotes managerial and cultural changes within a company.

Increased debates and scrutiny over Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Sustainable Development (SD) has resulted in a greater number of organizations subscribing to CSR and SD principles. To assist with the operationalization of CSR and SD, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed a set of standards – most recently a standard for social responsibility (ISO 26000). Some of these standards are intended for use as specification standards for certification, others establish guiding principles. The latter are not intended for certification purpose hence they rely on self-motivated implementation. Should ISO 26000 be a guidance standard or a certifiable standard? To answer this question, we firstly outline and discuss ISO standards for CSR and SD. Central to our discussion is whether and how certification impacts on the uptake of CSR and SD standards. We argue that for ISO 26000 a guidance standard not a certifiable standard is preferable.

The strategy and experience of the Council for Socially Responsible Investment in New Zealand promoting socially and environmentally responsible investment (SRI) is described and discussed. Issues the Council has faced included public accessibility to good information, definitions of SRI, standards for good corporate responsibility, and climate change. Internationally there are no successful examples of strategic models used by government, business or civil society to make SRI mainstream by voluntary means. Research indicates that SRI internationally is in single percentage figures only. This is a particularly acute problem if the worst scenarios of climate change (for example) are to be avoided: a rapid shift (within perhaps, eight years) of public and private investment into a SRI framework is required. If the world is to avoid dangerous global warming, it is very unlikely that the strategy of a voluntary shift to an international SRI economy will achieve this, and even with a shift to a regulated economy the chances are not good.

Education and entrepreneurship are the main enabling conditions for future change. Institutions of higher education should function as role-models of sustainability, with fairness in their own social policies and economic interactions. They should be active in the development of sustainable communities. Such practices are plainly in line with Humboldt's (c. 1870) traditional idea of the university as a change agent. Fortunately, there are already many examples. At the same time, we need a new type of entrepreneur: one who is the product of institutions where sustainability is taught and exercised. Many currently taught courses in “entrepreneurship” emphasize starting a small business; instead, they should emphasize transformational entrepreneurship: the type that changes the values and behavior of stakeholders and citizens.

The limitations of market based systems yield a basis for comparing HSM and CSR, whilst placing them relative to other variants of capitalism. In order to meet the full set of criteria for social responsiveness and ethicality, all the “variants” would have to be augmented in such as way that humane ideals are more effectively promoted. More generally, ethical enterprises operating within any systems of capitalism should not only refrain from exploiting market limitations, they should attempt to proactively compensate for all of them. This is nothing other than a rational and moral prescription for the strategic behaviour of productive entities. It is not an ideology.

Business firms have been addressing concerns raised by management scholars and social activists regarding the social responsibilities of business firms in the last 50 years. Yet, many companies and business executives frame the issue in the language of discretionary donations or acts of charity. In this article, I shall argue that the significant normative question is whether and how business corporations ought to address those growing societal concerns as a matter of duty. In addressing this question, the article examines four normative justifications – namely, the principles of Membership, Ability, Contribution and Fair Play – for grounding moral responsibilities and identifying agents of justice. I shall argue that none of the aforementioned principles provide a comprehensive account of how to allocate responsibilities among non-state institutions. Consequently, I shall propose a multi-principled theory that arranges the application of these four principles according to the circumstances of justice and the degree of urgency of needs.