Discussion: View Thread

Hi Everyone,

I sent this to blog yesterday, but since several people have suggested a wider discussion will post it here first, with my last comment (most important) put up front again to highlight it:

What would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.

Dear Governance Committee,

It is great to see that the SIM Division is considering refocusing its name and domain statement to provide more clarity and direction about what we actually do.  Having gone through similar exercises in the past, I know how difficult it is to come up with either a name or a statement that satisfies everyone-or even a majority of people.  And, of course, being on the other side of the question, I'm one of those who is not fully satisfied with the proposal (and of course like anyone writing, I am biased toward my own interests, so keep that in mind as you read below).  I have some concerns with the proposed division name (and to some extent the focus), Ethics, Governance, and Stakeholders. 

• It strikes me that EGS actually leaves out important segments of what SIM scholarship (at least historically) has been all about-the broad picture and understanding of (the responsibilities, behaviors, impacts, and ethics of) businesses in society.  While issues of ethics, particular responsibilities, governance, and stakeholder relationships are elements of that, to my mind, they don't capture the whole picture, which includes much broader questions about the fundamental rationale for having businesses in society and how we expect them to operate once they are there, i.e., what Dow Votaw, one of the field's founders called the legitimacy question. 

• EGS, while focusing the lens of research, does not seem capture the organizational (corporate or company or business or other types of organizations) or managerial aspects of business in society with which SIM has historically contended.  It strikes me as narrowing our interests in ways that I, for one, am not either comfortable or happy with. What happens to the bigger and sometimes highly critical questions that historically were (and IMNSHO still ought to be) at the heart of business in society research-about the functions and legitimacy of businesses (corporations), about its broader responsibilities to people, societies, and the planet where they operate-not to mention future generations?  I would not be comfortable claiming that the 'ethics' label satisfies all of those questions. 

• Of course, one could argue, as economists often do, that everything important is captured in the term stakeholders or ethics or governance, but from a research perspective that probably wouldn't actually be the case.  While these three streams may be popular right now, they represent today's perspective and not an evolving one that allows different future questions to emerge, as they inevitably will.  Where, for example, would questions of business' (or other organizations') roles in zones of conflict, human development, or peace and security fall under these rubrics?  Where is sustainability and all of its fall out-perhaps the biggest 'social' issue facing the planet today and for the foreseeable future (and with businesses having huge impacts on this issue)?  Do we simply abrogate that issue to the ONE division?  Where would questions about the very purpose of the firm itself in society fall within this framework? Or do we, SIM, simply let these truly important big questions, which question the fundamentals, fall to other divisions like CMS, while basically accepting the status quo and working to marginally improve it?   (I was going to say that we'd be fiddling while <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city></st1:place> burned, but it seemed too harsh...but there, now I've said it anyway.  It's a form of marginalization, but not the type that Ed Freeman had in mind in his division chair's address some years ago.)

• Nor does EGS seem to leave much room for business-government relations, questions about or impacts of globalization, public affairs or other new boundary-spanning functions that might emerge in the future, environmental management, responsibility management (or managerial practice for that matter, except with respect to stakeholders, and that's not entirely clear), social entrepreneurship, multi-sector collaboration, accountability, among other relevant topics frequently addressed by SIM scholars. 

• Further, there is no obvious reference through these terms to organizations or to responsibility, which seems to me to be the core of what SIM actually is about.  That sentiment is captured rather nicely in the proposed domain statement; however, it's entirely missing from the proposed name. 

• EGS seems to me to fully accept the system as given and to work within it.  It takes us away from the 'marginalization' that Ed Freeman once celebrated by accepting that we will work to better existing organizations, but does not suggest that there is any chance we might proposed that they be changed in fundamental ways.  From that perspective, EGS does not seem to allow much space for consideration of the whole system and its effects on people, planet, and organizations. 

• Another comment is that the term ESG (note the different order and different logic) has become very popular in practice these days.  It typically means 'environmental, social, and governance' so it captures some of what you intend (though frankly, I'm not convinced that governance is actually much a part of what SIM has been about at least in the past), but the 'social' provides a broader framework and potentially allows for bigger questions to be asked.  One could suggest making it EESG (ethics, environment, social, and governance), I suppose (or EESSG adding stakeholders to the list), but that simply adds more terms and gets into the very problem that you are trying to eliminate with the six different categories now supposedly constituting SIM work. 

• Oh well, we can't be all things to all people, I suppose, though we've often tried.  As I pointed out in my division chair's address more than ten years ago, numerous other divisions have already 'captured' much of what used to be core to SIM research, and that process has only intensified as the whole Academy begins to recognize the importance and core nature of what we have always been about.  Maybe the division needs to narrow its interests and accept the status quo in order to survive and be effective (as Jeff Pfeffer suggested about organizational theories some years back) in getting papers published in the right journals. 

• Finally, what would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions. 

Best wishes to all of you as you tackle this challenging task.

<st1:personname w:st="on">Sandra Waddock</st1:personname>

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place>

<st1:personname w:st="on">Sandra Waddock</st1:personname>, Professor of Management

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Carroll</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Management

Senior Research Fellow,

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> for Corporate Citizenship

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Chestnut Hill</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">MA</st1:state>  <st1:postalcode w:st="on">02467</st1:postalcode></st1:place>
 
617-552-0477
f:  617-552-0433
waddock@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~waddock/

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail notice

Hi Everyone,

I sent this to blog yesterday, but since several people have suggested a wider discussion will post it here first, with my last comment (most important) put up front again to highlight it:

What would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.

Hi Everyone,

I sent this to blog yesterday, but since several people have suggested a wider discussion will posa,t it here first, with my last comment (most important) put up front again to highlight it:

 

What would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.

 

Dear Governance Committee,

 

It is great to see that the SIM Division is considering refocusing its name and domain statement to provide more clarity and direction about what we actually do.  Having gone through similar exercises in the past, I know how difficult it is to come up with either a name or a statement that satisfies everyone-or even a majority of people.  And, of course, being on the other side of the question, I'm one of those who is not fully satisfied with the proposal (and of course like anyone writing, I am biased toward my own interests, so keep that in mind as you read below).  I have some concerns with the proposed division name (and to some extent the focus), Ethics, Governance, and Stakeholders. 

 

• It strikes me that EGS actually leaves out important segments of what SIM scholarship (at least historically) has been all about-the broad picture and understanding of (the responsibilities, behaviors, impacts, and ethics of) businesses in society.  While issues of ethics, particular responsibilities, governance, and stakeholder relationships are elements of that, to my mind, they don't capture the whole picture, which includes much broader questions about the fundamental rationale for having businesses in society and how we expect them to operate once they are there, i.e., what Dow Votaw, one of the field's founders called the legitimacy question. 

 

• EGS, while focusing the lens of research, does not seem capture the organizational (corporate or company or business or other types of organizations) or managerial aspects of business in society with which SIM has historically contended.  It strikes me as narrowing our interests in ways that I, for one, am not either comfortable or happy with. What happens to the bigger and sometimes highly critical questions that historically were (and IMNSHO still ought to be) at the heart of business in society research-about the functions and legitimacy of businesses (corporations), about its broader responsibilities to people, societies, and the planet where they operate-not to mention future generations?  I would not be comfortable claiming that the 'ethics' label satisfies all of those questions. 

 

• Of course, one could argue, as economists often do, that everything important is captured in the term stakeholders or ethics or governance, but from a research perspective that probably wouldn't actually be the case.  While these three streams may be popular right now, they represent today's perspective and not an evolving one that allows different future questions to emerge, as they inevitably will.  Where, for example, would questions of business' (or other organizations') roles in zones of conflict, human development, or peace and security fall under these rubrics?  Where is sustainability and all of its fall out-perhaps the biggest 'social' issue facing the planet today and for the foreseeable future (and with businesses having huge impacts on this issue)?  Do we simply abrogate that issue to the ONE division?  Where would questions about the very purpose of the firm itself in society fall within this framework? Or do we, SIM, simply let these truly important big questions, which question the fundamentals, fall to other divisions like CMS, while basically accepting the status quo and working to marginally improve it?   (I was going to say that we'd be fiddling while Rome burned, but it seemed too harsh...but there, now I've said it anyway.  It's a form of marginalization, but not the type that Ed Freeman had in mind in his division chair's address some years ago.)

 

• Nor does EGS seem to leave much room for business-government relations, questions about or impacts of globalization, public affairs or other new boundary-spanning functions that might emerge in the future, environmental management, responsibility management (or managerial practice for that matter, except with respect to stakeholders, and that's not entirely clear), social entrepreneurship, multi-sector collaboration, accountability, among other relevant topics frequently addressed by SIM scholars. 

 

• Further, there is no obvious reference through these terms to organizations or to responsibility, which seems to me to be the core of what SIM actually is about.  That sentiment is captured rather nicely in the proposed domain statement; however, it's entirely missing from the proposed name. 

 

• EGS seems to me to fully accept the system as given and to work within it.  It takes us away from the 'marginalization' that Ed Freeman once celebrated by accepting that we will work to better existing organizations, but does not suggest that there is any chance we might proposed that they be changed in fundamental ways.  From that perspective, EGS does not seem to allow much space for consideration of the whole system and its effects on people, planet, and organizations. 

 

• Another comment is that the term ESG (note the different order and different logic) has become very popular in practice these days.  It typically means 'environmental, social, and governance' so it captures some of what you intend (though frankly, I'm not convinced that governance is actually much a part of what SIM has been about at least in the past), but the 'social' provides a broader framework and potentially allows for bigger questions to be asked.  One could suggest making it EESG (ethics, environment, social, and governance), I suppose (or EESSG adding stakeholders to the list), but that simply adds more terms and gets into the very problem that you are trying to eliminate with the six different categories now supposedly constituting SIM work. 

 

• Oh well, we can't be all things to all people, I suppose, though we've often tried.  As I pointed out in my division chair's address more than ten years ago, numerous other divisions have already 'captured' much of what used to be core to SIM research, and that process has only intensified as the whole Academy begins to recognize the importance and core nature of what we have always been about.  Maybe the division needs to narrow its interests and accept the status quo in order to survive and be effective (as Jeff Pfeffer suggested about organizational theories some years back) in getting papers published in the right journals. 

 

• Finally, what would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions. 

 

Best wishes to all of you as you tackle this challenging task.

Sandra Waddock

Boston College

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sandra Waddock, Professor of Management

Boston College Carroll School of Management

Senior Research Fellow,

Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship

Chestnut Hill, MA  02467
 
617-552-0477
f:  617-552-0433
waddock@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~waddock/

 

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail notice

 

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

Dear SIMians (oh, how I would hate to lose that acronym but alas things do change!) –

I have enjoyed reading to comments from my colleagues and appreciate the interest in something that may initially appear to be trivial but indeed does have a significant impact in our schools, professional associations, etc.

As the Division Chair when the current Domain Statement was written (actually revised), I am completely in support of attempting to draft a new domain statement and agree with Kathy Getz, it needs to start with the statement and the name will follow.  I also like what Sandra has to say and agree with Marshall that there may be dozens, if not hundreds, of good suggestions.

Two comments:

1] regarding how to acquire community consent for the change – I attempted to solicit feedback from the SIM membership once regarding some basic demographic information.  There were about 900 SIMians at the time and my postal survey (before e-mail) resulted in about 30 responses.  (Yes, 30, no typo there, and this was when we typically had nearly 100 people attend the annual business meeting.)  So, it seems to me that we might garnish more membership participation by having a brief discussion and vote AT the annual business meeting.  I recommend that the governance committee careful consider how – in reality – they might allow for maximum participation in this important change, rather than believing the democratic rhetoric of "everyone will vote/participate if given the chance."

2] I like many of the new name proposals and do not understand why the term "management" must be in any new name for our division.  Currently of the 24 divisions and interest groups in the Academy of Management, including SIM, exactly 50% have the word "management" (or managerial) in their title.  Clearly there is precedence for dropping a reference to management, which seems to me to be a micro-term when a sizeable portion of our collective research is macro – society, global, systems, etc., as well as micro but focusing on students, NGOs, government officials, much more than managers or management.

Let me close with – I suspect that there will never be a domain statement or division name that achieves 100% (or even close to that) support.  This is what makes us such a wonderful division – our eclectic-ness and diversity.  Perhaps we can accept a "good" but not perfect name.  After all, for nearly two decades I and many of my colleagues have worked in "business ethics" and that was not clear in the division's name, although was included in the domain statement.

Good luck with this task, Tom and others.  I think there have been some excellent suggestions but ultimately we have elected the governance committee to provide leadership and to make the tough decisions.

Jim Weber, Ph.D.

Professor of Business Ethics

Director, Beard Center for Leadership in Ethics

Rockwell Hall 813, Duquesne University

600 Forbes Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15282

office: 412-396-5475

fax: 412-396-4764

www.business.duq.edu/Beard

Hi All,

This is not the first time I've found myself warming up to say something and then having Sandra articulate the same concerns far better than I would have done.

I absolutely agree with Tom and the division's other leaders in their assessment that our domain statement must change, and I generally agree that our division name ought to change. We should begin with our domain and allow that to lead us to our name. I hope that we will go forward in such a way that we remain connected to our own history while making sure that we have room for change. I recommend that the division leaders:

(1) Recraft the domain statement, focusing more clearly on our broad areas of interest rather than trying to categorize or list specific areas, and working to keep the statement relatively short.
The domain statement should include a statement built on Sandra's second point: big and sometimes highly critical questions are at the heart of business in society research-about the functions and legitimacy of businesses (corporations), about its broader responsibilities to people, societies, and the planet where they operate. So much follows from and fits into this general idea. The statement need not list all possible areas of research that are consistent with the domain; in fact I think a shorter statement is preferable. I just took a quick look at the domain statements of all the divisions, noticing that SIM's current statement is a bit longer than most of the others, yet significantly shorter than the proposed statement. Obviously, this is not the most important concern. But it provides a point of reference that supports the idea of trying to be more succinct.

(2) Think of a division name that will be evocative of the domain to ALL AoM members, whether or not they are division members.
Perhaps several ideas will emerge, at which point you may want to get additional feedback from the membership regarding what we'd like to be called.

My thanks to all our leaders for getting us started on this, and to Sandra for her very thoughtful comments.

Kathy


Kathleen Getz
Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Kogod School of Business
American University
Washington, DC  20016-8044
202-885-1998
http://www.kogod.american.edu/

Hi Everyone,
I sent this to blog yesterday, but since several people have suggested a wider discussion will post it here first, with my last comment (most important) put up front again to highlight it:
 
What would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.
 
Dear Governance Committee,
 
It is great to see that the SIM Division is considering refocusing its name and domain statement to provide more clarity and direction about what we actually do.  Having gone through similar exercises in the past, I know how difficult it is to come up with either a name or a statement that satisfies everyone-or even a majority of people.  And, of course, being on the other side of the question, I'm one of those who is not fully satisfied with the proposal (and of course like anyone writing, I am biased toward my own interests, so keep that in mind as you read below).  I have some concerns with the proposed division name (and to some extent the focus), Ethics, Governance, and Stakeholders.  
 

• It strikes me that EGS actually leaves out important segments of what SIM scholarship (at least historically) has been all about-the broad picture and understanding of (the responsibilities, behaviors, impacts, and ethics of) businesses in society.  While issues of ethics, particular responsibilities, governance, and stakeholder relationships are elements of that, to my mind, they don't capture the whole picture, which includes much broader questions about the fundamental rationale for having businesses in society and how we expect them to operate once they are there, i.e., what Dow Votaw, one of the field's founders called the legitimacy question.  

• EGS, while focusing the lens of research, does not seem capture the organizational (corporate or company or business or other types of organizations) or managerial aspects of business in society with which SIM has historically contended.  It strikes me as narrowing our interests in ways that I, for one, am not either comfortable or happy with. What happens to the bigger and sometimes highly critical questions that historically were (and IMNSHO still ought to be) at the heart of business in society research-about the functions and legitimacy of businesses (corporations), about its broader responsibilities to people, societies, and the planet where they operate-not to mention future generations?  I would not be comfortable claiming that the 'ethics' label satisfies all of those questions.  

• Of course, one could argue, as economists often do, that everything important is captured in the term stakeholders or ethics or governance, but from a research perspective that probably wouldn't actually be the case.  While these three streams may be popular right now, they represent today's perspective and not an evolving one that allows different future questions to emerge, as they inevitably will.  Where, for example, would questions of business' (or other organizations') roles in zones of conflict, human development, or peace and security fall under these rubrics?  Where is sustainability and all of its fall out-perhaps the biggest 'social' issue facing the planet today and for the foreseeable future (and with businesses having huge impacts on this issue)?  Do we simply abrogate that issue to the ONE division?  Where would questions about the very purpose of the firm itself in society fall within this framework? Or do we, SIM, simply let these truly important big questions, which question the fundamentals, fall to other divisions like CMS, while basically accepting the status quo and working to marginally improve it?   (I was going to say that we'd be fiddling while Rome burned, but it seemed too harsh...but there, now I've said it anyway.  It's a form of marginalization, but not the type that Ed Freeman had in mind in his division chair's address some years ago.)

• Nor does EGS seem to leave much room for business-government relations, questions about or impacts of globalization, public affairs or other new boundary-spanning functions that might emerge in the future, environmental management, responsibility management (or managerial practice for that matter, except with respect to stakeholders, and that's not entirely clear), social entrepreneurship, multi-sector collaboration, accountability, among other relevant topics frequently addressed by SIM scholars.  

• Further, there is no obvious reference through these terms to organizations or to responsibility, which seems to me to be the core of what SIM actually is about.  That sentiment is captured rather nicely in the proposed domain statement; however, it's entirely missing from the proposed name.  

• EGS seems to me to fully accept the system as given and to work within it.  It takes us away from the 'marginalization' that Ed Freeman once celebrated by accepting that we will work to better existing organizations, but does not suggest that there is any chance we might proposed that they be changed in fundamental ways.  From that perspective, EGS does not seem to allow much space for consideration of the whole system and its effects on people, planet, and organizations.  

• Another comment is that the term ESG (note the different order and different logic) has become very popular in practice these days.  It typically means 'environmental, social, and governance' so it captures some of what you intend (though frankly, I'm not convinced that governance is actually much a part of what SIM has been about at least in the past), but the 'social' provides a broader framework and potentially allows for bigger questions to be asked.  One could suggest making it EESG (ethics, environment, social, and governance), I suppose (or EESSG adding stakeholders to the list), but that simply adds more terms and gets into the very problem that you are trying to eliminate with the six different categories now supposedly constituting SIM work.  

• Oh well, we can't be all things to all people, I suppose, though we've often tried.  As I pointed out in my division chair's address more than ten years ago, numerous other divisions have already 'captured' much of what used to be core to SIM research, and that process has only intensified as the whole Academy begins to recognize the importance and core nature of what we have always been about.  Maybe the division needs to narrow its interests and accept the status quo in order to survive and be effective (as Jeff Pfeffer suggested about organizational theories some years back) in getting papers published in the right journals.  

• Finally, what would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.  

 
Best wishes to all of you as you tackle this challenging task.
Sandra Waddock
Boston College
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sandra Waddock, Professor of Management
Boston College Carroll School of Management

Senior Research Fellow,
Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship

Chestnut Hill, MA  02467
 
617-552-0477
f:  617-552-0433
waddock@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~waddock/
 

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail notice
 

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

What's in a Name?

Although stakeholder theory has some wonderful merits – it's still just a theory that bares a technique.  I can't imagine the OB Division, for example, being the "Organizational Behavior and Expectancies Division."

Some may argue that the stakeholder approach is more than a theory:  It is a way perceiving the position of business within society – as is social contract theory, free market capitalism, Marxism, etc..  I guess I don't understand (or perhaps I understand and rendered skeptical of)  the elevation of stakeholders above society in general...assuming of course, that business impacts society beyond the interests of its particular stakeholders in any given complexity of conflicting interests.

Some will take the other path – claiming all in society are stakeholders. In which case, we've identified an apt and timely synonym for "society?"

Anyway, at times I am reminded: all stakeholders are equal but some are more equal than others.     

<st1:personname w:st="on"><st2:givenname w:st="on">George</st2:givenname> <st2:sn w:st="on">Watson</st2:sn></st1:personname>

My first reaction to Business in Society is that it is still too general for the AOM. (To me it sounds like an introductory overview course offered to business or non-business students early in their curriculum) or a textbook title   If it were Business & Society Management (BSM) or Business in Society Management (BSM) it might be a bit more professionally focused. Years ago I argued that our journal Business and Society didn't sound too scholarly and that it ought to be Business and Society Journal (BSJ) or Review (BSR), both of which had a better sound to them than just B and S. At the time many on the board liked it but said we couldn't change because <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Roosevelt</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>, which founded the journal, said it had to remain B and S. I don't know that that argument still holds.

I'm not quite ready to respond yet to the proposal of Ethics, Governance, and Stakeholders but I am sure I would like it more if the word Management were appended. It is clear a name change of this magnitude will take time and a lot of discussion. But, to be honest, I am not convinced our division's problems/challenges/issues are traceable to the <st1:stockticker w:st="on">SIM</st1:stockticker> nomenclature. Using that same logic, I'm not sure a name change would hurt us either but if we are to change it should be thoroughly discussed -- which is what we are doing.
Today's thoughts,
<st1:personname w:st="on"><st2:givenname w:st="on">Archie</st2:givenname> <st2:sn w:st="on">Carroll</st2:sn></st1:personname>

--
<st1:personname w:st="on"><st2:givenname w:st="on">Archie</st2:givenname> <st2:middlename w:st="on">B.</st2:middlename> <st2:sn w:st="on">Carroll</st2:sn></st1:personname>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Terry</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">College</st1:placename></st1:place> of Business
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Georgia</st1:placename></st1:place>
<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Athens</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">GA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">30606</st1:postalcode> <st1:country-region w:st="on">USA</st1:country-region></st1:place>

http://www.terry.uga.edu/profiles/?person_id=443 (Professional)
http://www.terry.uga.edu/management/non_profit/ (Nonprofit Program)
http://academic.cengage.com/management/carroll (Textbook) _______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to <st1:stockticker w:st="on">SIM</st1:stockticker>@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the <st1:stockticker w:st="on">SIM</st1:stockticker> Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

Good points, all. Three comments on the proposed name change and commentary:

1) "Stakeholder" is generally a Western term that is difficult to translate and not understood well in many other parts of the world, as evidenced by recent US/Chinese dialog about our trade imbalance.

2) "Governance" is a helpful term because it captures a wide range of government involvement and manager oversight of organizations. The term "ethics"  is helpful, too, because it focuses attention on individuals (all sorts of stakeholders) and their responsibilities. "Business in (or and) society" accommodates nicely the first (governance), but not the second ("ethics") very well.

3) Acronyms...they sorta matter, I guess...but at a tertiary level. Other divisions don't emphasize them much.

Marty Calkins
University of Massachusetts Boston
.•´¯`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸¸. ><((((º>
¯`•.¸¸.><((((º>¯`•.¸¸.><((((º>

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org
_______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery
options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1
_______________________________________________________________________

SIM Colleagues:

I have stayed out of the discussion up to this point with the belief that a wider set of colleagues will provide some important insights into the proposed change. The discussion has been a rich one.

The important issue is our domain on which the title is built. The proposed domain statement is too long and should be consolidated into no more than two paragraphs from my perspective.

I agree with Sandra that maintaining "society" as a major word in our title is best since it reflects the broad arena in which we operate. Either "Business in Society" or "Responsible Business in Society" is an excellent choice. The EGS appellation misses the mark because it focuses on more specific sub sets of the broader foundation on which our field has been built.

Thanks to the Governance Committee for stimulating a very interesting and important discussion!

Cheers,

Jeff Lenn

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">George</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Washington</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>

Hi Everyone,

I sent this to blog yesterday, but since several people have suggested a wider discussion will post it here first, with my last comment (most important) put up front again to highlight it:

What would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions.

Dear Governance Committee,

It is great to see that the SIM Division is considering refocusing its name and domain statement to provide more clarity and direction about what we actually do.  Having gone through similar exercises in the past, I know how difficult it is to come up with either a name or a statement that satisfies everyone-or even a majority of people.  And, of course, being on the other side of the question, I'm one of those who is not fully satisfied with the proposal (and of course like anyone writing, I am biased toward my own interests, so keep that in mind as you read below).  I have some concerns with the proposed division name (and to some extent the focus), Ethics, Governance, and Stakeholders. 

• It strikes me that EGS actually leaves out important segments of what SIM scholarship (at least historically) has been all about-the broad picture and understanding of (the responsibilities, behaviors, impacts, and ethics of) businesses in society.  While issues of ethics, particular responsibilities, governance, and stakeholder relationships are elements of that, to my mind, they don't capture the whole picture, which includes much broader questions about the fundamental rationale for having businesses in society and how we expect them to operate once they are there, i.e., what Dow Votaw, one of the field's founders called the legitimacy question. 

• EGS, while focusing the lens of research, does not seem capture the organizational (corporate or company or business or other types of organizations) or managerial aspects of business in society with which SIM has historically contended.  It strikes me as narrowing our interests in ways that I, for one, am not either comfortable or happy with. What happens to the bigger and sometimes highly critical questions that historically were (and IMNSHO still ought to be) at the heart of business in society research-about the functions and legitimacy of businesses (corporations), about its broader responsibilities to people, societies, and the planet where they operate-not to mention future generations?  I would not be comfortable claiming that the 'ethics' label satisfies all of those questions. 

• Of course, one could argue, as economists often do, that everything important is captured in the term stakeholders or ethics or governance, but from a research perspective that probably wouldn't actually be the case.  While these three streams may be popular right now, they represent today's perspective and not an evolving one that allows different future questions to emerge, as they inevitably will.  Where, for example, would questions of business' (or other organizations') roles in zones of conflict, human development, or peace and security fall under these rubrics?  Where is sustainability and all of its fall out-perhaps the biggest 'social' issue facing the planet today and for the foreseeable future (and with businesses having huge impacts on this issue)?  Do we simply abrogate that issue to the ONE division?  Where would questions about the very purpose of the firm itself in society fall within this framework? Or do we, SIM, simply let these truly important big questions, which question the fundamentals, fall to other divisions like CMS, while basically accepting the status quo and working to marginally improve it?   (I was going to say that we'd be fiddling while <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city></st1:place> burned, but it seemed too harsh...but there, now I've said it anyway.  It's a form of marginalization, but not the type that Ed Freeman had in mind in his division chair's address some years ago.)

• Nor does EGS seem to leave much room for business-government relations, questions about or impacts of globalization, public affairs or other new boundary-spanning functions that might emerge in the future, environmental management, responsibility management (or managerial practice for that matter, except with respect to stakeholders, and that's not entirely clear), social entrepreneurship, multi-sector collaboration, accountability, among other relevant topics frequently addressed by SIM scholars. 

• Further, there is no obvious reference through these terms to organizations or to responsibility, which seems to me to be the core of what SIM actually is about.  That sentiment is captured rather nicely in the proposed domain statement; however, it's entirely missing from the proposed name. 

• EGS seems to me to fully accept the system as given and to work within it.  It takes us away from the 'marginalization' that Ed Freeman once celebrated by accepting that we will work to better existing organizations, but does not suggest that there is any chance we might proposed that they be changed in fundamental ways.  From that perspective, EGS does not seem to allow much space for consideration of the whole system and its effects on people, planet, and organizations. 

• Another comment is that the term ESG (note the different order and different logic) has become very popular in practice these days.  It typically means 'environmental, social, and governance' so it captures some of what you intend (though frankly, I'm not convinced that governance is actually much a part of what SIM has been about at least in the past), but the 'social' provides a broader framework and potentially allows for bigger questions to be asked.  One could suggest making it EESG (ethics, environment, social, and governance), I suppose (or EESSG adding stakeholders to the list), but that simply adds more terms and gets into the very problem that you are trying to eliminate with the six different categories now supposedly constituting SIM work. 

• Oh well, we can't be all things to all people, I suppose, though we've often tried.  As I pointed out in my division chair's address more than ten years ago, numerous other divisions have already 'captured' much of what used to be core to SIM research, and that process has only intensified as the whole Academy begins to recognize the importance and core nature of what we have always been about.  Maybe the division needs to narrow its interests and accept the status quo in order to survive and be effective (as Jeff Pfeffer suggested about organizational theories some years back) in getting papers published in the right journals. 

• Finally, what would be wrong with simply saying what we are about:  business in society (not that it's in not and) or responsible business in society, and allowing the domain statement to provide perspective on what that means at any given point in history.  Of course then we'd be BS, perhaps not the best acronym (possibly descriptive, however), or we could be BIS, which might be a nice acronym since it would probably be pronounced 'biz' and thereby for align us with the core purposes of businesses in a wholly new way that still allows for consideration of bigger picture questions. 

Best wishes to all of you as you tackle this challenging task.

<st1:personname w:st="on">Sandra Waddock</st1:personname>

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype></st1:place>

<st1:personname w:st="on">Sandra Waddock</st1:personname>, Professor of Management

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Carroll</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place> of Management

Senior Research Fellow,

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Boston</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">College</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> for Corporate Citizenship

<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Chestnut Hill</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">MA</st1:state>  <st1:postalcode w:st="on">02467</st1:postalcode></st1:place>
 
617-552-0477
f:  617-552-0433
waddock@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~waddock/

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail notice

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

To send a message to the list, send your email to SIM@aomlists.pace.edu

_______________________________________________________________________

Visit the SIM Division website at: http://sim.aomonline.org _______________________________________________________________________

If you wish to unsubscribe from this list or change your delivery options, you can do so online at: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=sim&A=1 _______________________________________________________________________

--
Mary J. Mallott
mary.mallott@gmail.com