DOI: 10.1111/beer.12193
EDITORIAL
Gender and governance in developing economies 1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N In this special issue our aim is to showcase different types of research
2 | D E FI N I N G G OV E R N A N C E FRO M A M U LTI S TA K E H O LD E R A N D M U LTI LE V E L PE R S PEC TI V E
being conducted at the intersection between gender and governance and to highlight how each can more specifically contribute to busi‐
Loosely defined, governance concerns rule‐based decision‐making
ness ethics and business–society empirical and theoretical investiga‐
and oversight (OECD, 2012) and as such it is multilevel and multidi‐
tions of the developing economies in the global south. To do this,
mensional. Governance is a complex construct and has structures
we encouraged contributions from various disciplines hoping that a
spanning both formal and informal arrangements, as well as global
multidisciplinary conversation would help to: (1) unveil complex and
and local levels (Wieland, 2001). Although governance in the busi‐
intersecting dynamics shaping the gendered nature of diverse gov‐
ness and management literature has traditionally been tied to cor‐
ernance systems and forces spanning different levels of analysis and
porations and business enterprises in the developed economies of
(2) expand the mainstream paradigms adopted, questions posed, and
the global north and has been largely focused on the economic role
methods used in relevant research. The result is a collection of five pa‐
of business in society (Jamali & Karam, 2016; Sundaram & Inkpen,
pers that capture both organization‐based quantitative investigation
2004; Voltan, Hervieux, & Mills, 2017), there is an increasing inter‐
more common to business ethics and management research and the
est in exploring the multifaceted nature of governance and how it
less widely used critical and ethnographic qualitative research meth‐
shapes transactions beyond the organization and beyond mainte‐
odologies. Together, the papers explore dynamics at and/or across the
nance of market economic systems. Here therefore, transactions
individual laborer/employee level, the organizational/corporate level,
take on different forms emerging from interactions between mar‐
and in national, international, and transnational spaces. It is our hope
kets, transnational alliances, state, multinational enterprises, organi‐
that this multiplicity of contributions will not only encourage rich con‐
zations, and other business stakeholders (World Bank, 2014).
versations but also a stretching of the parameters within which the governance–gender relationship is examined and understood.
Indeed, current models of governance in business ethics and management research are increasingly adopting a more global and
In what follows, we first describe the nature of governance
multilayered perspective with social, economic, and environmental
broadly, and then narrow down to highlight specific geopolitical
aims (Grant & McGhee, 2014; Levy & Kaplan, 2007) traced between
and market‐economic challenges tied to issues of gender and gov‐
and across these stakeholders and ever expanding to include non‐
ernance in developing countries specifically. Our critique is, there‐
traditional business actors such as: non‐profit organizations, NGOs,
fore, positioned within broader social theory about the firm and
public sector entities, and other significant groups (Barkemeyer,
whether it is able to move beyond its economic function to support
2009; Dentchev, Balen, & Haezendonck, 2015; Moon & Vogel, 2008;
positive social change toward gender justice. Our critique questions
Rasche & Gilbert, 2012; Vogel, 2005; Wadham & Warren, 2013). As
both the ‘capabilities’ of organizations and their market position and
argued by Scherer and Palazzo (2011, p. 16), with this multistake‐
‘authority’ in the global political economy (see Banerjee, 2014; Levy
holder positioning and the growing influence of business generally,
& Kaplan, 2007). We also consider corporate social responsibilities
firms are increasingly involved themselves in complex systems of
(CSR) as business activities which embrace how governance is con‐
governance; that is, increasingly involved “in global business regu‐
ceptualized and practiced in the act of governing (Haufler, 2001). In
lation and in the production of global public goods.” With a move
this latter consideration, the institutional forces governing CSR and
beyond viewing governance issues as solely associated with board
the business systems from which they emerge are seen to largely
representation and the behaviors of boards therefore, governance
follow corporate rationality arising from the ideological and politi‐
today, and as seen throughout this special issue, is a dynamic term. It
cal assumptions about the role of the firm in contemporary society
is a term that can have various formulations relevant to exploring the
and stages of global capitalism (see Banerjee, 2014; Özkazanç‐Pan,
relationship between gender and governance from assessing ethical
2018). Our hope is to stretch business ethics inquiry to consider the
decision‐making and legal frameworks that regulate in some ways
complexities and varied possibilities for new models of governance
the constitution and effectiveness of the board to involving activi‐
that are more attuned to the power dynamics related to gender and
ties that have traditionally been associated with state or interstate
their negative ramifications.
oversight (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Matten & Crane, 2005; Scherer
Business Ethics: A Eur Rev. 2018;1–7.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/beer © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1
|
EDITORIAL
2
& Palazzo, 2008). In this way, governance encapsulates the pro‐
& Frynas, 2005; Grosser, McCarthy, & Kilgour, 2016). Such relational
cesses and/or sets of policies and practices institutionalized through
analysis has been the hallmark of feminist scholarship with the focus
standards, rules, norms, and expectations (Slager, Gond, & Moon,
on agency, power, and the systems of inequality (e.g., Metcalfe, 2011;
2012) that apply across levels, boundaries, and groups. With this
Nussbaum, 2003). Through this research, inequalities are often dem‐
broader and more complex formulation, governance involves indi‐
onstrated to be relational and tied to the gendered nature of negative
vidual firm‐level governance, state‐level frameworks which often in‐
externalities of the modern market capitalist system (e.g., Grosser,
clude legislative provisions and state machineries, and finally global
Moon, & Nelson, 2017; Karam & Jamali, 2017). For example, increas‐
governance, which incorporates multiple stakeholders across scales.
ingly we see important research attempting to unpack how business
Furthermore, and associated with this complex formulation,
efforts toward fair and gender‐positive practices may inadvertently
research on governance and the gender–governance relationship
result in further disempowering women lower on the corporate value
requires multilevel, multiactor public frameworks with room for lan‐
chain (e.g., McCarthy, 2017; Özkazanç‐Pan, 2018).
guage and investigation that acknowledges and explores varied dif‐
Highlighting the mechanisms for maintaining inequalities is a
ference signifiers (e.g., race, class, ability, other), their intersection,
first step in conducting gendered analysis of governance and there‐
and related power dynamics stretching across borders and bound‐
fore to devising better governance models with more fair policies,
aries, both within and outside of a single business entity. Although
strategies, and standards (e.g., Grosser & Moon, 2005; Grosser et
inviting greater and greater complexity, such views of governance
al., 2016; Karam & Jamali, 2013; Prieto‐Carrón, 2008). In conducting
allow for a genuine concern with not only board composition and
such analyses researchers could move toward an exploration of the
financial performance but also with democratic control, protect‐
mechanisms that produce intentional and unintentional gendered
ing the weak from the strong (Wolff, 2006), and with establishing
outcomes in not only organizational structures and leadership roles
and maintaining mechanisms through which “collective interests on
but also extending throughout the global value chains where low‐
the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are estab‐
wage, low‐status women's labor is foundational to global produc‐
lished, and differences are mediated” (Weiss & Thakur, 2006, p. 4 in
tion networks and systems (Grosser et al., 2016). Such an analysis
Banerjee, 2014, p. 6). Conceptualizing governance in this way brings
involves picking apart the rules of recognition, the sets of economic
forward such concerns and drives us to ponder possibilities for both
structures, and the governance arrangements that maintain and per‐
more just forms of rule‐based decision‐making and oversight, and
petuate globalized capitalism (Özkazanç‐Pan, 2018). This is no simple
for what Wolff (2006) refers to as “metagovernance” or the “gover‐
task because when one considers gender in relation to governance
nance of governance.” Furthermore, pondering different forms un‐
and global governance, one is faced, as noted earlier, by complex
veils their interdependencies and, therefore, highlights the expansive
multiple bodies operating at different scales.
spaces within which a gendered analysis of governance is relevant
For example, at the transnational scale, research has highlighted
and important. These sociocultural and geopolitical dimensions, we
the role of international organizations such as the United Nations
would argue, need to be understood in relation to gender and spatial
and World Economic Forum in promoting gender‐equitable gover‐
frames. Indeed, as will be further fleshed out next and in the papers
nance programs and gender empowerment initiatives (Bergeron,
of this special issue, greater efforts are needed toward a more robust
2001; Moghadam, 1999). However, growing feminist critiques of
understanding of the relationships between gender and governance,
these efforts assert that they do nothing more than to privilege
and the implications of these for more responsible and ethical busi‐
market and trade growth to the detriment of the most vulnerable
ness and management practice in varied spaces across the globe.
communities and individuals (Acker, 2004; Eisenstein, 2005; Pyle & Ward, 2003). Indeed, some management scholars argue that foun‐
3 | G E N D E R A N D G OV E R N A N C E I N D E V E LO PI N G ECO N O M I E S
dational to these efforts is the harnessing of healthier markets and greater economic development on the back of “women's predomi‐ nantly unpaid and largely ‘voluntaristic’ contributions” (Chant, 2013, p. 98). This, in effect, creates gendered hierarchies where a mascu‐
Emerging debates concerning the relationship between gender and
linist ethic of the “Davos Man” (see Metcalfe, 2011; Syed & Metcalfe,
governance in developing economies often highlight the compounded
2017), coupled with market and trade growth, is given top priority,
nature of layers of governance with complex power dynamics per‐
and pursuing “women's rights for their own sake” is treated as less
petuated by the interdependencies of markets, institutions, and
important and secondary (Chant, 2003, p. 97).
ideologies as played out within the context of increasingly widening
At the national scale, researchers have highlighted state gover‐
developed/developing country inequalities (Özkazanç‐Pan, 2018;
nance machineries set up to regulate corporate “misbehavior” and
Rai, 2008). These gendered power dynamics are often relational and
to monitor a whole range of inequalities between men and women
encapsulate not only the intricacies of diverse geopolitical subtleties
(Chant & Sweetman, 2012; Council of Europe, 1998; Nussbaum,
of expanding neoliberal capitalism (Metcalfe, 2011; Pollack & Hafner‐
2003). Here gender and governance initiatives often involve public
Burton, 2000) but also the organizing processes for what is conceptu‐
administration systems and institutional frameworks that attempt to
alized as good governance (see Bexell, 2012), who can participate, and
regulate private sector and employment settings of a single nation or
whose concerns are heard and prioritized (Banerjee, 2008; Blowfield
set of nations. Any effort to summarize the existing types of systems
|
3
EDITORIAL
and frameworks will suggest that these are highly variable. In the
firms in China. Arguing for a more contingency‐based approach, the
context of such national‐level developments, Rittenhofer and Gatrell
authors find that the two are related and further moderated by firm
(2012) highlight the surprising lack of attention paid to gender main‐
size. They identify a critical firm size value under which the gender
streaming within management and organization studies except for
board diversity has a positive impact on firm performance, and over
a handful of studies (e.g., Benschop & Doorewaard, 1998; Grosser,
which this relationship is undermined. With the increasing number
2009; Grosser & Moon, 2005; Metcalfe & Afanassieva, 2005;
of national‐level gender action plans in developing countries, this
Metcalfe & Woodhams, 2008). They further continue that while the
paper provides a Chinese example of specific dynamics surround‐
adoption of gender mainstreaming promised to offer transformative
ing government regulations regarding promoting women's participa‐
potential with regard to achieving gender equality in employment,
tion in decision‐making and management. Providing a contextualized
progress has been slow (Rittenhofer & Gatrell, 2012). At the level of
framing the authors highlight the historical and regulatory complex‐
organizations, gender mainstreaming has become a random collec‐
ity and interconnection between board gender diversity, corporate
tion of diverse strategies and activities, all concerned with moving
governance, and organizational contexts in China which adds to the
forward a gender equality agenda, but often not delivering on its
paucity of research on boards in developing economies and also
promise (Rao & Kelleher, 2005).
helps advance our understanding of the relationship between board
Furthermore, moving beyond insular views of single levels, the
gender diversity and firm performance in this regard.
division between transnational, national, and organizational levels is
The remainder of the special issue contributions veer away from
not, of course, clean cut. There is a multitude of ways that the trans‐
this quantitative approach exemplified by Li and Chen's paper (this
national intersects and intertwines with the national to influence
issue), and instead adopt more critical approaches to examining the
organizational practices. Feminist scholarship engaged in analyzing
gender–governance relationship. Kang and Parpart (this issue), for
these occurrences are often focused on tracing and unpacking these
example, explore the discursive construction of masculinities in CSR
bidirectional influences and have explored the relationships between
reporting. These authors focus on the ways in which inequality is
transnational trade and local corporate initiatives in opening possi‐
perpetuated through social relations in family‐owned multinational
bilities for new models of gendered governance (Metcalfe, 2008;
enterprises (i.e., Chaebols) in South Korea. Using discourse analysis,
Özkazanç‐Pan, 2018). For example, Barrientos and coauthor's work
the premise is that meanings and the social construction of mascu‐
asserts that while ethical trade initiatives do not directly address gen‐
linist themes can be inferred from text and also from what is not
der inequalities arising from poor labor standards endemic in global
represented in text. Here these authors explore how masculinism is
production networks and systems (Barrientos & Smith, 2007), some
sustained and privileged, focusing on the construction of masculin‐
women's organizations have developed novel and potentially prom‐
ist frames that influence work–life balance, gender pay differentials,
ising opportunities for engagement with CSR initiatives (Barrientos
and career development. The authors show the effects of the silenc‐
& Evers, 2014). How and what types of feminist agency or barriers
ing of feminine subjectivities and their construction as lesser than
these nurture is unclear and needs further exploration.
male subjectivities and how male voices and male symbolism asso‐
Taken together, or separately, the elements relating to gender
ciated with leadership and the overall patterns of national business
and governance described repeatedly point to complex formula‐
groups are embedded within the CSR reports analyzed. The authors
tions. With this complexity the gendered assumptions and dynamics
further argue that these hidden and naturalized assumptions work
become particularly important to examine in order to trace the in‐
to increasingly silence and disadvantage women and part‐time male
tricacies of intersecting governance policies, practices, and systems
employees. Ultimately, the paper questions the structural masculin‐
that perpetuate gendered power dynamics and the gender status
ist barriers in this context and suggests new forms of CSR reporting
quo (Rai, 2004). Indeed, highlighting the elements relating to gen‐
that is more attuned with a hegemonic masculinity critique.
der and governance in this way helps to uncover and speak to the
In the three remaining manuscripts we turn our attention beyond
realities of the different gender orders and gender regimes (Connell,
internal organizational perspectives to examine broader and more
1987) and the institutionalization of particular governance frame‐
systemic questions about gender and governance. Here we see a
works that exist (Young, 2003). Uncovering some of these gendered
gendered analysis that provides opportunities for voices across the
realities of governance and linking them to business ethics is the
global value chain. As such, we see that the literature reviews, anal‐
key aim of the current special issue as will be further detailed below
yses, and discussions are more reflective of the relational politics
through our description of the manuscripts included.
and dynamics surrounding power versus powerlessness, privilege versus vulnerability, and thriving versus barely surviving/decaying
4 | S PEC I A L I S S U E M A N U S C R I P T S
inherently embedded in the working lives and social circumstances of employees. Together, these manuscripts bring readers to more closely consider the work of critical scholars such as Spivak (1988),
Following the tradition of much of the gender mainstreaming and
and feminist political economists such as Elson (2009), Hoskyns and
gender quota scholarship in the business and management literature,
Rai (2007), and Beneria (1999). Grounded in this work we see greater
Li and Chen (this issue) explore the relationship between board gen‐
attention and a broader reading of global governance systems and
der diversity and firm performance of A‐share‐listed non‐financial
the implications of these for citizens in developing economies (Rai,
|
EDITORIAL
4
2008). The contributions of these papers highlight the need for a
biases that organize our knowledge of the “others” that we study,
closer examination of business–society relations that better ac‐
and ultimately the way we understand and perpetuate gender and
knowledge and trace the intimate multilayers, multistakeholder
governance systems in local settings.
dynamics tied to gender and governance, and the interrelationships with the politics and trends of markets, institutions, and ideologies. In the first of these three papers, Ahmed (this issue) explores
5 | D I R EC TI O N S FO R FU T U R E R E S E A RC H
the multilayered power dynamics surrounding the Rana Plaza di‐ saster in Bangladesh and proposes a central principle for feminist
Taken together, the five papers included in this special issue have
governance in global value chains which she asserts is giving voice
furthered our understanding of gendered governance dynamics and
to the subordinated strata. Ahmed's (this issue) selection of quotes
structures in China, Korea, Bangladesh, Ghana, and Uzbekistan. The
in her introduction captures the multilayered complexities of
collective contribution of these papers lies in showing the benefits
these and other voices, where together they present a cacophony
of embracing a more multilevel, multistakeholder, and critical ap‐
of fear and powerlessness of individuals in the global garment in‐
proach to researching the relationship between gender and govern‐
dustry. She asserts further that: “These Southern voices reveal the
ance in developing economies. Building on the directions for future
matrix of fear that reflects the Northern matrix of power in GVC”
research highlighted in the discussion of each of the papers individu‐
(i.e., the Global Value Chain), one that could be detected in other
ally, in what follows we highlight the promise of future research that
industries across the globe. Exploring the relationships between
focuses specifically on uncovering embedded power relations and
buyer–state, state–factory, buyer–factory, and intra‐factory rela‐
the link of these relations to the generation of knowledge about gen‐
tions, Ahmed does an elegant job capturing the matrices of power
der and governance generally.
and carefully traces how management and business scholars can
Across the special issue papers, embedded power relations were
better centralize such considerations in their research at the inter‐
of key importance whether manifested as gendered hierarchies or
and intra‐factory levels. Providing three principles for gendered
as positional authority on boards. Power relations are multiple and
governance models, the article is a solid basis for teasing apart the
fluid, and are shaped by nuanced sociocultural and geopolitical dy‐
intricacies of related research on gender and governance in global
namics. Without acknowledging these relational dynamics, struc‐
markets.
tural and process‐related inequities remain hidden and ultimately
McCarthy (this issue) explores further the power dynamics expe‐
underrepresented in research. This underrepresentation has his‐
rienced in the day‐to‐day lived experiences of employees at the end
torically been exacerbated in business ethics research due to the
of global value chain. She focuses on the dimensions and dynamics
preoccupation with internal organizing of governance, as opposed
surrounding unpaid care work and highlights the potential of con‐
to an examination of the more complex, external, and multilayered
necting this invisible form of work to models of business respon‐
relations relevant across the levels of business–society interfaces.
sibility so as to advance more sustainable models of development.
In this special issue, we have captured a move beyond insular man‐
Presented as a gendered CSR case study from Ghana, McCarthy
agement perspectives alone and toward the questioning of main‐
asks the crucial question “to what extent can CSR in the global south
stream understanding and know‐how. In this way, we align ourselves
‘recognize, reduce, and redistribute’ unpaid care work?” thereby
with increasing critical calls to question: the use of Western‐domi‐
helping businesses to better acknowledge the essential and founda‐
nated epistemological and methodological approaches to generate
tional need for this form of work. McCarthy calls for business eth‐
management knowledge (Frenkel & Shenhav, 2006; Özkazanç‐Pan,
ics and business–society researchers to more explicitly incorporate
2008), the restrictions on organizational theorizing employing alter‐
unpaid care work into CSR theory and practice thereby ultimately
nate assumptions (Calas & Smircich, 2003; Ibarra‐Colado, 2006), and
making women's voices part of CSR design and practice.
the effacement of non‐Western knowledge generated by the “other”
The final paper of Campbell and Kim (this issue) also delves into
or from elsewhere (Banerjee & Linstead, 2001). Indeed, we agree
the day‐to‐day lives of women, focusing in particular on local ex‐
that future research could better explore embedded power relations
periences in a development site in Uzbekistan. Adopting a feminist
and its implications for gendering business ethics and management
approach, these authors demonstrate how governance of a busi‐
scholarship.
ness–society development program focusing on women works to
Aligned with this, and likely to be of use to future work in this
organize what we understand as the gendered power relations of de‐
area, are broader feminist sociological accounts of how gender
velopment. The authors assert that the organization of development
regimes and gender hierarchies position certain groups as hav‐
knowledge shapes the implementation of such programs. Indeed,
ing power: power over, power to, and power with (e.g., Allen, 2009;
the authors demonstrate that such knowledge organization caters
Connell, 1987; Pitkin, 1972; Young, 1992). Adopting such concepts is
more to organizing institutions than it does to the target beneficia‐
useful to further unpack the complexity of power in organizing gov‐
ries. Employing a critical lens to interrogate organizing from the sole
ernance relations and structures both within and outside the firm
standpoint of the institution, Campbell and Kim (this issue) encour‐
and within and outside the nation. Recent work by Karam and Jamali
age an uncovering of hidden biases. The paper leads us to further
(2017) adopts just such an approach to unpack the latent power dy‐
reflect on our own research methods in order to better uncover the
namics surrounding CSR in developing economies and demonstrates
|
5
EDITORIAL
the utility of feminist theoretical lenses. Furthermore, Metcalfe and
explore and shape research on such frameworks and codes and to
Woodhams (2012) attempt to unravel the relationality of knowledge
explore how institutions, local sociopolitical and cultural norms, and
between accounts of women in the global north and those in the
their interaction with regulatory processes may shape their impact
global south. They argue that this is significant in that it loosens
on the gender–governance relationship.
the implicit association between “best organization policies,” “best gender policies,” “best HR strategies,” and the practices of Western multinational corporations. They argue further for the need to focus
6 | CO N C LU S I O N
on researching dynamics beyond the firm to highlight key themes necessary to take a broader critique of the political economy of de‐
The objective of this special issue was to shed light on possibili‐
velopment and its association with the embedded power relations of
ties for interdisciplinary research conducted at the intersection
gender regimes.
between gender and governance in the developing economies of
Overall, this special issue suggests a need for broader critiques
the global south. We believe this focus is of increasing interest for
that integrally highlight epistemological issues in theory formulation
the business ethics community of scholars, and BEER's readership
embracing “the Rest” (Özkazanç‐Pan, 2008). Critical feminist lenses
more specifically, because it encourages an unpacking of the com‐
and postcolonial feminist frameworks, for example, would be useful
plex and intersecting dynamics shaping the gendered nature of di‐
here in that they attend to a political epistemology and engage with
verse governance systems and forces. The five papers showcased
the possibility of recognizing agency in the making of governance
in this special issue provide rich empirical insights, from a variety
arrangements that speak for and about the subaltern (see Spivak,
of countries, shedding light on the complex power dynamics un‐
1988) and the identities of “the other” (see Bhabha, 1994; Said,
derlying governance, spanning across stakeholders and levels of
1978). Such frames incorporate a concern with power that explic‐
analysis.
itly raises questions about inclusion and notions of social justice and
Each of these five papers addresses pertinent topics such as
requires a detailing of the gendered construction of governance as
board gender diversity at the organizational level (Li & Chen), male
socially constituted and therefore as experienced and understood
hegemony in CSR reporting (Kang & Parpart), gendered gover‐
differently in geographic regions.
nance in global value chains (Ahmad), the need to integrate unpaid
With further dissection of power relations and its link to knowl‐
care work in CSR theory and practice (McCarthy), and epistemo‐
edge generation, an additional area for focus in future research could
logical intricacies of studying gendered governance of a business–
focus on the notion of “relationality” specifically. That is, we believe
society development program (Campbell & Kim). Taken together,
that a focus on the psycho‐cognitive, historical, and sociopolitical
these papers present various ways in which power relations are
connectedness of individuals and communities will help to further
manifested, encouraging a more critical understanding of the
advance investigations of gender and governance in business ethics
complexity of gendered governance and gendering governance in
and business–society research. Such a focus can lead to many poten‐
developing economies. While each of these papers has advanced
tial directions for exploration such as a focus on relational binaries
our knowledge in particular ways, many questions, as noted in the
or dichotomous constructions. For example, future research could
previous section, remain unaddressed and deserve further schol‐
explore male–female binaries and/or developing–developed hierar‐
arly attention.
chical dichotomy. This work could help to unpack the ways in which
We therefore call for more concerted critical and interdisciplin‐
both are intimately linked to each other and to equality discourses
ary efforts to further unpack the embedded power relations un‐
that serve to shape the broader organizing principles of governance
derlying governance and gender issues, to further investigate the
and gender roles, and the associated assumptions about what is of
relationality of individuals and communities and their implications
value. Furthermore, future work on gender and governance could
on governance planning in the global political economy, and to fur‐
benefit from scholarly frames which undo such assumed relational‐
ther adopt variant epistemological and methodological approaches
ity by better situating these dichotomies as they relate to inequality
that can enhance theorizing, deconstruct existing assumptions, and
and discrimination in the context of history and social institutions
include alternative voices from the global south in mainstream dis‐
across the global economy.
courses on gender and governance in business ethics research and
It is equally important to link the research on power relations and relationality to studying regulatory standards and their effec‐
knowledge generation.
tiveness including measures for broader social justice and equality
Charlotte M. Karam, Beverly Dawn Metcalfe, Fida Afiouni
goals and the institutional frameworks that exist in government to
Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Lebanon
undertake gender planning (e.g., sustainable development goals, na‐ tional action plans). Future research therefore is needed to further examine such regulatory standards against the backdrop of the more developed status of corporate codes measuring women's participa‐ tion and representation (Klettner, 2016). Much more rooms exist to
Correspondence Charlotte M. Karam, American University of Beirut, Olayan School of Business, P.O.Box 11-0236, Beirut 1107 2020, Lebanon. Email:
[email protected]
|
6
R E FE R E N C E S Acker, J. (2004). Gender, capitalism and globalization. Critical Sociology, 30(1), 17–41. Allen, J. (2009). Three spaces of power: Territory, networks, plus a topo‐ logical twist in the tale of domination and authority. Journal of Power, 2(2), 197–212. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79. Banerjee, S. B. (2014). A critical perspective on corporate social respon‐ sibility: Towards a global governance framework. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 10(1/2), 84–95. Banerjee, S. B., & Linstead, S. (2001). Globalization, multiculturalism and other fictions: Colonialism for the new millennium?. Organization, 8(4), 683–722. Barkemeyer, R. (2009). Beyond compliance–below expectations? CSR in the context of international development. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(3), 273–289. Barrientos, S., & Evers, B. (2014). Gendered production networks: Push and pull on corporate responsibility? In S. M. Rai & G. Waylen (Eds.), New frontiers in feminist political economy (pp. 43–61). New York: Routledge. Barrientos, S., & Smith, S. (2007). Mainstreaming fair trade in global value chains: Own brand sourcing of fruit and cocoa in UK supermarkets. In L. Raynolds, D. Murray & J. Wilkinson (Eds.), Fair Trade: the challenges of transforming globalization (pp. 103–122). London: Routledge. Beneria, L. (1999). Globalization, gender and the Davos Man. Feminist Economics, 5(3), 61–83. Benschop, Y., & Doorewaard, H. (1998). Covered by equality: The gender subtext of organizations. Organization Studies, 19(5), 787–805. Bergeron, S. (2001). Political economy discourses of globalization and feminist politics. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 26(4), 983–1006. Bexell, M. (2012). Global governance, gains and gender: UN–business partnerships for women's empowerment. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 14(3), 389–407. Bhabha, J. (1994). European harmonisation of asylum policy: A flawed process. Virginia Journal of International Law, 35, 101. Blowfield, M., & Frynas, J. G. (2005). Editorial Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on Corporate social responsibility in the devel‐ oping world. International Affairs, 81(3), 499–513. Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (2003). At home from Mars to Somalia: Recounting organization studies. In H. Tsoukas & C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta‐theoretical perspec‐ tives (pp. 596–606). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chant, S. (2003). Female household headship and the feminisation of pov‐ erty: Facts, fictions and forward strategies. LSE Gender Institute, New Working Paper Series, Issue 9. London: London School of Economics. (Unpublished). http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/574/ Chant, S. (2013). The long shadow of “smart economics”: The making of methodologies and messages of the World Development Report 2012. In L. Oso & N. Ribas‐Mateos (Eds.), The international handbook of gender, migration and transnationalism: Global and development per‐ spectives (pp. 97–123). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Chant, S., & Sweetman, C. (2012). Fixing women or fixing the world? ‘Smart economics’, efficiency approaches, and gender equality in de‐ velopment. Gender & Development, 20(3), 517–529. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Council of Europe. (1998). Gender mainstreaming: Conceptual frame‐ work, methodology, and presentation of good practices. EG‐S‐MS (98) 2 rev. Strasbourg, France. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr. org/3c160b06a.pdf
EDITORIAL
Dentchev, N. A., Balen, M., & Haezendonck, E. (2015). On voluntarism and the role of governments in CSR: Towards a contingency ap‐ proach. Business Ethics: A European Review, 24(4), 378–397. Eisenstein, H. (2005). A dangerous liaison? Feminism and corporate glo‐ balization. Science and Society, 69(3), 487–518. Elson, D. (2009). Gender equality and economic growth in the World Bank World Development Report 2006. Feminist Economics, 15(3), 35–59. Frenkel, M., & Shenhav, Y. (2006). From binarism back to hybridity: A postcolonial reading of management and organization studies. Organization Studies, 27(6), 855–876. Grant, P., & McGhee, P. (2014). Corporate governance reform: Character‐ building structures. Business Ethics: A European Review, 23(2), 125–138. Grosser, K. (2009). Corporate social responsibility and gender equal‐ ity: Women as stakeholders and the European Union Sustainability Strategy. Business Ethics: A European Review, 18(3), 290–307. Grosser, K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility and multi‐stake‐ holder governance: Pluralism, feminist perspectives and women's NGOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 65–81. Grosser, K., McCarthy, L., & Kilgour, M. (Eds.). (2016). Introduction. In Gender equality and responsible business: Expanding CSR horizons (pp. 1–14). Saltaire: Greenleaf. Grosser, K., & Moon, J. (2005). Gender mainstreaming and corporate social responsibility: Reporting workplace issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 62(4), 327–340. Grosser, K., Moon, J., & Nelson, J. (2017). Gender, business ethics and corporate social responsibility: Assessing and refocusing a conversa‐ tion. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(4), 541–567. Haufler, A. (2001). Taxation in a global economy: Theory and evidence. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hoskyns, C., & Rai, S. M. (2007). Recasting the global political econ‐ omy: Counting women's unpaid work. New Political Economy, 12(3), 297–317. Ibarra‐Colado, E. (2006). Organization studies and epistemic coloniality in Latin America: Thinking otherness from the margin. Organization, 13(4), 463–488. Jamali, D., & Karam, C. M. (2016). CSR in developing countries as an emerging field of study. International Journal of Management Reviews, 52(3), 343–359. Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2013). Gendering CSR in the Arab Middle East: An institutional perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 31–68. Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2017). A cross‐cultural and feminist perspec‐ tive on CSR in developing countries: Uncovering latent power dy‐ namics. Journal of Business Ethics, 142(3), 461–477. Klettner, A. (2016). Corporate governance codes and gender diversity: Management‐based regulation in action. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 39, 715. Levy, D. L., & Kaplan, R. (2007). CSR and theories of global gover‐ nance: Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford hand‐ book of CSR (pp. 432–451). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an ex‐ tended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179. McCarthy, L. (2017). Empowering women through corporate social responsibility: A feminist Foucauldian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(4), 603–631. Metcalfe, B. D. (2008). Women, management and globalization in the middle east. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 85–100.
EDITORIAL
Metcalfe, B. D. (2011). Women, empowerment and development in Arab Gulf States: A critical appraisal of governance, culture and national human resource development (HRD) frameworks. Human Resource Development International, 14(2), 131–148. Metcalfe, B. D., & Afanassieva, M. (2005). Developments in gender and management research in Central and Eastern Europe. Women in Management Review, 20(5), 304–311. Metcalfe, B. D., & Woodhams, C. (2008). Critical perspectives in diversity and equality management. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 23(6), 377–381. Metcalfe, B. D., & Woodhams, C. (2012). Introduction: New directions in gender, diversity and organization theorizing–re‐imagining femi‐ nist post‐colonialism, transnationalism and geographies of power. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 123–140. Moghadam, V. (1999). Gender and globalization: Female labor and wom‐ en's mobilization. Journal of World‐Systems Research, 5(2), 366–389. Moon, J., & Vogel, D. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, government, and civil society. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility (pp. 303–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Gender and governance: An introduction. In M. Nussbaum, A. Basu, Y. Tambiah, & N. G. Jaya (Eds.), Essays on gen‐ der and governance: United Nations Development Programme. OCLC 608384493. (pp. 1–19). India: Macmillan. OECD. (2012). Recommendation of the Council on Regulatory Policy and Governance. Paris, France: Author. Retrieved from http://www.oecd. org/gov/regulatory-policy/recommendations-guidelines.htm Özkazanç‐Pan, B. (2008). International management research meets the rest of the world. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 964–974. Özkazanç‐Pan, B. (2018). CSR as gendered neocoloniality in the Global South. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10551-018-3798-1 Pitkin, H. (1972). Wittgenstein and justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Pollack, M. A., & Hafner‐Burton, E. (2000). Mainstreaming gender in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 432–456. Prieto‐Carrón, M. (2008). Women workers, industrialisation, global sup‐ ply chains and corporate codes of conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(1), 5–17. Pyle, J. L., & Ward, K. B. (2003). Recasting our understanding of gender and work during global restructuring. International Sociology, 18(3), 461–489. Rai, S. (2004). Gendering global governance. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 6(4), 579. Rai, S. M. (2008). Analysing global governance. In S. M. Rai, & G. Waylen (Eds.), Global governance (pp. 19–42). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rao, A., & Kelleher, D. (2005). Is there life after gender mainstreaming? Gender & Development, 13(2), 57–69. Rasche, A., & Gilbert, D. U. (2012). Institutionalizing global governance: The role of the United Nations Global Compact. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21(1), 100–114.
|
7
Rittenhofer, I., & Gatrell, C. (2012). Gender mainstreaming and employ‐ ment in the European Union: A review and analysis of theoretical and policy literatures. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14(2), 201–216. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism: Western representations of the Orient. New York, NY: Pantheon. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Slager, R., Gond, J. P., & Moon, J. (2012). Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organization Studies, 33(5–6), 763–790. Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Sundaram, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004). The corporate objective revis‐ ited. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363. Syed, J., & Metcalfe, B. D. (2017). Under western eyes: A transnational and postcolonial perspective of gender and HRD. Human Resource Development International, 20(5), 403–414. Vogel, D. J. (2005). Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 47(4), 19–45. Voltan, A., Hervieux, C., & Mills, A. (2017). Examining the win‐win prop‐ osition of shared value across contexts: Implications for future appli‐ cation. Business Ethics: A European Review, 26(4), 347–368. Wadham, H., & Warren, R. (2013). Inspiring action, building understand‐ ing: How cross‐sector partnership engages business in addressing global challenges. Business Ethics: A European Review, 22(1), 47–63. Weiss, T. G. & Thakur, R. (2006). The UN and global governance: An idea and its prospects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Wieland, J. (2001). The ethics of governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 73–87. Wolff, S. (2006). Ethnic conflict: A global perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. World Bank. (2014). Risk and opportunity: Managing risk for devel‐ opment. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ EXTNWDR2013/Resources/8258024-1352909193861/893693513 5 6 0 114 4 8 21 5/8 9 8 69 0 1-13 8 0 0 4 69 8 9 0 5 6/ W D R-2 0 14 _ Complete_Report.pdf Young, I. M. (1992). Social groups in associative democracy. Politics & Society, 20(4), 529–534. Young, I. M. (2003). The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 29(1), 1–25.
