Baylor University Roundtable on The Corporate Mission, CEO Pay, and Improving the Dialogue with Investors

A small group of academics and practitioners discusses four major controversies in the theory and practice of corporate finance:

• • What is the social purpose of the public corporation? Should corporate managements aim to maximize the profitability and value of their companies, or should they instead try to balance the interests of their shareholders against those of “stakeholder” groups, such as employees, customers, and local communities?
• • Should corporate executives consider ending the common practice of earnings guidance? Are there other ways of shifting the focus of the public dialogue between management and investors away from near-term earnings and toward longer-run corporate strategies, policies, and goals? And can companies influence the kinds of investors who buy their shares?
• • Are U.S. CEOs overpaid? What role have equity ownership and financial incentives played in the past performance of U.S. companies? And are there ways of improving the design of U.S. executive pay?
• • Can the principles of corporate governance and financial management at the core of the private equity model—notably, equity incentives, high leverage, and active participation by large investors—be used to increase the values of U.S. public companies?

     

“A GEM” for increasing the effectiveness of diversity training

Questions about diversity training's utility and effectiveness remain despite its widespread use and the significant investments many firms make in such training. As a result, some HR practitioners have doubts about its relevance in the workplace. In this paper, we envision a future state of diversity training whereby diversity is embedded into work practices and programs through direct knowledge transfer, continuous skill development, and accountability for learning. We recommend four specific guidelines that HR leaders can follow to achieve this “future state” called A.G.E.M.—Approach, Goals, Executive Commitment, and Mandatory Attendance. We suggest that following the A.G.E.M. approach will lead to the kind of transformative behavioral changes required for effective diversity training programs.     

Environmental Reporting Through an Ethical Looking Glass

This paper adopts the lens of environmental ethics to explore whether there is a disparity between the ethical approaches of a company in comparison to those expressed by stakeholders in relation to environmental issues, specifically those communicated through the corporate environmental report. Discourse analysis is adopted to explore the environmental section of the sustainability reports of the case study company as compared to the responses of a sample of the company’s stakeholders, using the lens of three branches of environmental ethics: utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics. Results indicate that the ethical approaches expressed in the case study company’s environmental reports were grounded in utilitarianism and deontology, in contrast to a virtue ethics approach expressed by external stakeholders. The disparity widened as the relationship between the company and the stakeholder became less direct. This disparity signals a failure to meet one of the primary purposes for preparing sustainability reports: to engage with stakeholders. As such this research contributes to the literature by identifying a disparity in the how this information is communicated compared with how it is perceived by stakeholders. This has important implications for the success of current stakeholder engagement practices.     

Supply Chain Integrity: A Key to Sustainable Supply Chain Management

As stakeholders continue to increasingly hold firms accountable for environmental and social performance in their supply chains, the importance of understanding how firms can be more sustainable becomes more prescient. Based on the underlying premise of stakeholder theory that business and ethics decisions are intertwined, the current research introduces the concept of supply chain integrity (SCI) to explore how the interdependence of business and ethics decisions can lead to improvements in sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) practices. Exploratory analysis employing secondary data sources in an elastic net (EN) logistic regression provides support for the proposed construct, by providing preliminary empirical evidence that SCI, measured through two subdimensions of structural and moral SCI, can be linked to firm sustainability. The research contributes to the supply chain management literature by: (1) introducing the concept of SCI; (2) performing an exploratory econometric analysis to provide initial validity of the SCI construct; and (3) providing a research agenda to guide further research on the concept of SCI and its role in SSCM.     

The Ethics of Marketing to Vulnerable Populations

An orthodox view in marketing ethics is that it is morally impermissible to market goods to specially vulnerable populations in ways that take advantage of their vulnerabilities. In his signature article “Marketing and the Vulnerable,” Brenkert (Bus Ethics Q Ruffin Ser 1:7–20, 1998) provided the first substantive defense of this position, one which has become a well-established view in marketing ethics. In what follows, we throw new light on marketing to the vulnerable by critically evaluating key components of Brenkert’s general arguments. Specifically, we contend that Brenkert has failed to offer us any persuasive reasons to think that it is immoral to market to the vulnerable in ways that take advantage of their vulnerability. Although Brenkert does highlight the fact that the specially vulnerable are at greater risk of being harmed by already immoral marketing practices (e.g., deception, manipulation), he fails to establish that the specially vulnerable are a unique moral category of market clients or that there are special moral standards that apply to them. Moreover, even if Brenkert’s position were theoretically defensible, the practical implications of his position are far less tenable than he suggests. If our criticisms are sound, then Brenkert and others who endorse his position are seriously mistaken regarding how one can permissibly market products to vulnerable populations, and, in addition, they have improperly categorized certain morally permissible marketing practices as being immoral.