2.3. Agency Theory Agency Theory (AT) is often applied in order to explain certain phenomena in the context of franchising (e.g. Brickley and Dark, 1987; Carney and Gedajlovic, 1991; Doherty and Quinn, 1999). This section therefore deals with some aspects of AT such as the principal-agent model, AT’s application in franchising, agency problems and costs, and it lists measures to remedy those issues. 2.3.1.
Business Horizons, August: 61-71 stated that,” As firms attempt to ensure complete coverage to their environmental scanning techniques, a series of acronyms have been created to provide for a more systematic and thorough report on the environment and the acronym represents the Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental trends that are or could impact the firm, now or in the future.” I According to Author Prescott, J.E. and Herko, R. 2010. In his book , “TOWS Analysis: The Role of Competitive Intelligence”, Competitive Intelligence Magazine, 13 (3): 9-12 stated that “ the analysis of a firm’s strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats
Also, include some concept that is still valuable in today practice of the CSR. Such as three concentric circles notion of social responsibility as illustrated by DR. Kopp with the Prioritizing GAP analysis within the confined of Barry University. The inner circle is the clear-cut primary duties for the efficient execution. With the intermediate circle incorporates responsibility in which it exercises the economic function of an organization with a conscious awareness of social changes in values and priorities. Finally, the outer ring is developing and still indistinct obligations that organization should expect to consider more comprehensively associated with currently enhancing the social
In this paper I am going to present a debate between two approaches developed in the course of the 90s: structural-functionalism and practice theory. What I am trying to grasp is whether these two approaches are similar and/or different, but especially understanding how they both address the study of socio-cultural systems as a whole on one hand, and the study of individual subjectivities on the other. From the names and brief descriptions of these two approaches one is drove to think that structural-functionalism, which focuses on the study of the structures in society understood as the continuing arrangements of persons in relationships defined or controlled by institutions (Radcliffe-Brown 2013:182), is concerned most on studying socio-cultural system as a whole, while practice theory, which focuses on people’s capacity to make and transform the world in which they live, is more about the study of individual subjectivities. But the relation of these two approaches is actually more complicated than that. Let’s see why.
The goal is to leverage your company’s unique capabilities in supporting social causes, and improve your competitive context at the same time. The job of today’s leaders is to stop being defensive and start thinking systematically about corporate responsibility.” Michael Porter, Professor, Harvard Business School, “Social responsibility is the responsibility of an organization for the impacts of its decisions and activities on society and the environment through transparent and ethical behavior that is consistent with sustainable development and the welfare of society; takes into account the expectations of stakeholders; is in compliance with applicable law and consistent with international norms of behavior; and is integrated throughout the organization.” Working definition, ISO 26000 Working Group on Social Responsibility, “The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has described CSR as the business contribution to sustainable economic development. Building on a base of compliance with legislation and regulations, CSR typically includes “beyond law” commitments and activities pertaining to”: • Corporate governance and ethics; • Health and safety; • Environmental stewardship; • Human rights (including core labor rights); • Sustainable
Hofstede's model is composed of six dimensions that emerged from his research. The model assists in understanding different kinds of organisational cultures based on these organisational dimensions: process-oriented versus results-oriented; employee-oriented versus job oriented; parochial versus professional; open system versus closed system; loose versus tight control; normative versus tight control. Hofstede’s organisational culture dimensions is based on his work on differences in societal cultures. Hofstede (2009) argues that societal culture lies in (often unconscious) values, while organisational culture resides more in (visible and conscious) practices. Consequently, Hofstede's model may be adequate for measuring societal culture where the focus is on those cultural values.
Social exchange theory was introduced by sociologist George Homans (1958) and developed by Peter Blau (1964) and Richard Emerson (1978). According to social exchange theory, “human relationships are formed by the use of subjective cost-benefit analysis and the comparison of alternatives. “ Studies have applied this theory to study the interdependent relationships among organizations and their need to absorb the constraints. A firm may initially try to bypass the constraints imposed by the environment or another organization by diversifying or by building redundancies in resource acquisition (e.g. liaising with multiple suppliers).
By saying so I mean that Anthropology as a field of Social and Behavioral study puts extra emphasis and significance on the forms of citizenship through a range of conventional to more alternative forms of it. In this master course we study the behavior of human being in a diverse and multifaceted framework that is designed upon the triple bottom line, referred to otherwise as People-Planet-Profit. In specific, the article of Micheletti and Stolle explains this behaviour through various dynamics from temporal, spatial and environmental aspects in order to restore and rethink certain ideals and principles that will contribute to more just, peaceful, eco-friendly and more long-term contexts for citizens and animals’ well being. Active citizenship implies that citizens are aware, conscious and act individually or collectively as well as responsibly in order to cope and deal effectively with societal concerns that impede the society to grow