The purpose of this study was to analyze governance for sustainability in the hydropower companies that are lo- cated in contexts of violence, using a case study from the energy industry to explore the emergent issues, dominant players, and tools used in their solution. The exploratory case method employed by Yin  is used, inspired by other, similar works [7, 15]. In all, 16 in-depth interviews were conducted, and the data were triangulated using sec- ondary information. The interviews involved employees from one of the country’s main power companies, public employees from state organizations, and local leaders from areas that had experienced armed conflict. The secondary information that was examined dealt with corporate sus- tainability, collaborative governance, and energy develop- ment in contexts of violence.
Abstract. Organisations are increasingly leveraging improved decision making processes during the establishment of project teams. Beyond the obvious advantages of accessing qualified, cost-effective project staff, the issues of sustainability and governance are addressed when the virtual teaming approach is used. Projects can proceed without people needing to travel to a co-located work-place, thus saving time, effort and expense while creating less environmental pollution. But there is a governance problem; running virtual projects, particularly complex projects involve a greater degree of difficulty than managing co-located projects. What is needed are effective, practical methods for managing virtual projects. This paper introduces a new Reference Model of Organisational Behavior (RMOB) for the Leadership of Complex Virtual Teams which is arguably an effective way to meet the challenges of virtual teaming. This paper also discusses the new issue of sustainable leadership with mention of the proposed Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Management indicators that point towards sustainable governance.
For example, social-ecological systems scholars have focused on understanding how adaptive governance can facilitate adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006). This has included proposals that ‘governance for navigating change’ requires a dual focus on both ‘adapting’ (i.e. “short and long-term responses and strategies to buffer perturbations and provide capacity to deal with change and uncertainty”), and ‘transforming’ (i.e. “strategies to create a fundamentally new system when current conditions make the existing system untenable”) (Armitage and Plummer, 2010). Transitions scholars have explored the governance of transitions in socio- technical systems (e.g., Smith et al., 2005; Foxon et al., 2009; Loorbach, 2009), assuming that whilst change cannot be controlled it can nevertheless be steered through ‘goal-oriented modulation’ of co-evolutionary change processes (Kemp et al., 2007). Development scholars have argued vigorously for the need to focus on the socially-embedded and power- laden nature of sustainabilitygovernance contexts, placing a central focus on marginalised groups (Leach et al., 2007a,b), and to “culture plural [forms of] radical progress” through recognising democratic struggle as a fundamental force for societal transformation (Stirling, 2014). More broadly, political scientists have long emphasised the deeply political and normative aspects of governance for sustainability (Meadowcroft, 2007) such as the dominance of (neo)liberal environmental norms in global environmental governance (Bernstein, 2002), and the importance of pluralism and democratic debate as a basis for sustainability agendas (Meadowcroft, 1997). These different approaches have different kinds of implications for understanding governance in regard to transformations towards sustainability.
(see Chapter 2 for more detail). Our research has assigned `discourse analysis‟ a significant role in understanding these phenomena both theoretically and empirically. In order to identify, understand and evaluate the case of local governance for sustainability the theoretical framework argues for the need to deploy methods to understand the governance arrangements in practice, decision-making process(es), bargaining, power relations, inclusion and exclusion from these processes, „knowledge in practice‟ and the resulting policy. The framework highlights the role of validity claiming found in (linguistic) discursive forms. Examples of how and where these might be articulated include speeches, articles and policy documents, or they may be found in debates or meetings or within keywords/slogans and metaphors. The theoretical framework argues that the two streams of investigation (i.e. governance arrangements and KnowledgeScapes) require different, albeit complimentary, kinds of methods. It is our contention that the methods for identifying and understanding them may be derived through developing an understanding of institutional `Hardware‟ and `Software‟ (Dryzek, 1996). The `Hardware‟ being the mechanisms and structures that surround the policy issue and the `Software‟ constituted through the informal practices that are often identified (or constructed) by the analyst using a combination of interviews and observation.
The World Bank defines governance as the exercise of political authority and the use of institutional resources to manage society's problems and affairs. Governance is a goal and a precondition for positive development results as well. A responsible private sector is an absolute precondition for economic growth and for poverty reduction. Corporate governance also includes the relationships among the many stakeholders involved and the goals for which the corporation is governed. In contemporary business corporations, the main external stakeholder groups are shareholders, debt holders, trade creditors, suppliers, customers and communities affected by the corporation's activities. Internal stakeholders are the board of directors, executives, and other employees. Regulators face a difficult dilemma in that correction of governance abuses perpetrated by a dominant shareholder would often imply a micro-management of routine business decisions which lie beyond the regulators’ mandate or competence. The capital market on the other hand lacks the coercive power of the regulator, but it has the ability to make business judgements. Corporate governance is concerned with holding the balance between economic and social goals and between individuals and company goals. The corporate governance frame work is there to encourage the efficient use of resources and accountability for the stewardship of these resources. Its aim is to align as nearly as possible to the interest of individuals, corporations and society 3
• Public finances, through budgetary and non-budgetary items, can also impact the functioning of markets and the business environment. In addition to the above-mentioned roles of efficient public expenditure and revenue systems, public finances also play a particular role through their impact on wage setting (e.g. public sector wages), labour market participation and mobility (e.g. benefits systems), and, more generally, the business environment (e.g. through the provision of a well-functioning judicial system and public infrastructure). However, public finances are only one element in ensuring the smooth functioning of labour, product and services markets obviously and need to be accompanied by an efficient regulatory and legal framework. The Commission services’ preliminary analysis suggests that total factor productivity and skilled labour contribution to GDP growth are the greatest beneficiaries in economies with lower regulatory burdens. These two growth components, in turn, have played a prominent role in EU growth over the past two decades, thereby contributing to the sustainability of public finances.
76. See supra subsection I.C.2. While this is not the focus of this Note, other schol- ars—particularly those advocating for the stakeholder conception of corporate govern- ance—advocate for broader stakeholder considerations than just environmental and sustainability initiatives (e.g., human rights accountability). This Note acknowledges that recognition of a green board could create a “slippery slope” argument for the addition of other types of “experts” (i.e., a human rights expert) to the board, but asserts that this formulation of a sustainability expert on the board is unique in that it is a part of corpo- rate profitability rather than being purely a part of corporate philanthropy. Wholly altru- istic environmentally beneficial actions by a corporation could, of course, fall under the philanthropy umbrella rather than the competitive sustainability strategies discussed and advocated in this Note.
Questions of legitimacy and authenticity are integral to the success of the transformation The Community Precinct Program is an important example of attempts to improve community-Council relations and information transfer. I have used interview and participant observation data to illustrate challenges and facilitators to increasing commrmity participation and improving quality of life through greater community involvement in the decision-making process, and in the development and implementation of sustainability initiatives. Findings indicate that while the implementation of the Precinct Program has definitely improved the information transfer between the community and the Council and provided a forum in which community members can discuss issues of concern, several challenges are evident. If measured by assessing the degree of integration of community views into Council's decision-making process, the success of the Precinct Program is limited by three factors:
Empirical studies on managing conlicting demands are few. However, the implications of a failure to manage hybrid tensions emerge from a number of studies. For instance, an analysis of two microinance organizations found that intractable identity conlicts between banking and develop- ment logics led to “an impasse which made it impossible to operate efectively” (Battilana and Dorado 2010, p. 1427). The impasse was resolved after staf resignations, dismissals, and strategic reorientation. Conversely, Phillips et al. (2011) document the demise of Aspire (a mail order catalogue) attributing it to the prioritization of social mission above commercial sustainability. These failures highlight the dif- iculty social enterprises have in mitigating hybrid tensions. Battilana and Lee (2014), in their conceptual paper, pro- pose ive dimensions of hybrid organizing to manage hybrid tensions: (1) organizational activities, (2) workforce com- position, (3) organizational design (4) culture, and (5) inter- organizational relationships, many of which are alluded in Sect “Hybrid Tensions” above. In essence, Battilana and Lee (2014) address the issue that to maintain legitimacy, hybrids need to maintain appeal to multiple audiences by integrating activities, resources, structure, culture, and partners. Inte- grated approaches can be found in the business models of Grameen microinance where the beneiciary and customer are one and the same (Khavul 2010), or in sustainable entre- preneurs where disrupting markets with more sustainable alternatives, provides both more sustainable consumption, and revenue for the enterprise (Davies and Chambers 2018). Through integrating the ive dimensions of hybrid organ- izing to deliver multiple forms of value simultaneously, organizations are more likely to be recognized as legitimate members of multiple institutional forms (Battilana and Lee 2014). However, for some social enterprises, their social and commercial activities
Partnerships can bring together diverse stakeholders. This can create valuable synergies if the resources and ideas of the partners are pooled and combined effectively. Partnerships are therefore a key requirement for successful urban management and planning in the context of UF and GI. For example, building partnerships can be important for securing the social and political support required for achieving urban green space programmes, projects or initiatives . Partnerships between various stakeholder groups such as public administration, cities, local communities, landowners, resident initiatives and NGOs represent an effective approach towards inclusive, participatory planning and management of GI and urban forests that is well accepted and takes account of the diversity of interests. Through partnerships, polycentric governance may be achieved as agencies and individuals at regional and local level can become directly involved in the creation and management of urban forests and green infrastructure [22, 35, 36]. They are of strategic importance for promoting continuity of co-operation and long-term sustainability . Partnerships also allow for cost effective provision and maintenance of urban forests and GI . For example, resident groups involved in urban forest initiatives such as the “NeighbourWood” scheme in Ireland, Heiðmörk Forest near Reykjavik or at Bosco della Citta in Milan have planted urban forests at low cost to the public purse through contributions of free time and voluntary labour on the project [24, 38, 41]. However, partnerships have not only proved economically efficient by reducing the costs of providing UF and GI services. They have also been successful when it comes to the acquisition of funding and the physical resources required for providing UF and
identified the prospect of developing programmes to improve community engagement and raise awareness of sustainability – several NGOs were working on schemes to encourage recycling or composting of food waste (Interview 1, 3 and 4). However, to successfully broaden the scope of these initiatives it was suggested that political will was needed to provide the legitimacy needed for local populations to become engaged (Interview 10). This is of course critical, given the constraints on the power of NGOs (particularly in Darjeeling, where the NGOs in operation are relatively small) to effect widespread change. If “the government” at local levels could be seen to support sustainability programmes and facilitate better planning it was hoped that participation would become more effective (Interview 2 and 4). To achieve this an increased and more effective dialogue is needed between Municipal (and ideally State) officials, NGOs and local people. Willingness is also therefore needed from all actors to ensure this occurs. It has also been suggested that improved education, beyond the existing remit of NGOs, would enable a more explicit understanding of sustainability issues to be debated within local communities.
In discussing alternatives to current regulatory mechanisms, five interviewees expressed the need for a shift towards more agriculturally-based regulatory mechanisms. They explained that Health Canada’s governance and jurisdiction over Canada’s hemp industry needs to be diminished, at least to some degree. Blair [sales/business person] noted that the industry “should be handed over to Agriculture and Agri-food Canada,” while Hayden [farmer, sales/business person] explained that “hemp should be regulated just like wheat, oats or barley.” Affirming these opinions, a third interviewee highlighted hemp’s exclusion from the Canada Grain Act, and argued that there are “certain rights and privileges that are granted to grains under the Act, that hemp does not have” [Kasey, farmer].
accumulation. Their work is cyclical but also understands timelines beyond a single year. As the Chipko women say, ‘this forest is our mother’s home; we will protect it with all our might,’  in understanding they today’s forest and field depend on yesterday’s farmer, and today’s grower has a responsibility to the future, in marked contrast with a logic of conservation based on stocktaking of current reserves in a world where species are disappearing daily and ecosystems are increasingly in crisis. Transformative change means new ways of thinking that reject continuous growth and wealth acquisition in favor of sustainable satisfaction of human needs and meaningful living that aim to leave healthy ecosystems for their children. We find that sustainability approaches that generate conflict amongst their goals are fundamentally flawed, while transformative sustainability strategies hold a promise of success through their holistic, inherent, and integrative vision of reconciliation, care, and respect for diverse needs and interests toward optimal solutions.
Next, various market forms of governance of agrarian activity are to be specified, and the extent in which “free” market contributes to coordination (direction, correction) and stimulation of agrarian activity and exchange, and effective allocation and utilization of agrarian (material, finance, intellectual, natural, etc.) resources analyzed. Market governance is effective for an immense portion of activity and transactions in agrarian sector, since it is characterized with many participants, standard products, “free” competition a nd price formation, high frequency of transactions and low assets specificity. Simultaneously there are numerous “failures” of market in governing of critical for agriculture activities such as innovations, long-term investments, infrastructural development, environmental protection, etc. It has to be identified all cases of “market failure” leading to lack or insufficient individual incentives, impossibility for a choice or unwanted exchange, and deficiency for effective maintenance of economic, social and ecological functions of agriculture.
sustainability at a local level, where adaptive governance is the bundle of formal and informal institutions and individuals who collectively come together across different scales (such as spatial and governmental) to envision collaborative sustainable and resilient environmental outcomes (Folke 2007). Adaptive governance has developed in relation to natural resource management and focuses on interactions between communities and local resources from a social-ecological-systems perspective. Evolving from common property theory (Berkes 1989, Ostrom 1990), it has helped clarify the role of communities and human actors in ecosystem management. Adaptive governance systems have been found to self-organize as social networks and connect individuals, organizations, agencies and institutions at multiple organisational levels (Folke 2007). Also explicit within adaptive governance is the concept of polycentric institutions, where multiple governance units exist at multiple scales, with each unit having some self-governing capacity appropriate to its scale (Ostrom 2010). It is this institutional foundation of adaptive governance that we are particularly interested in
Seeing that corporate governance has a close relationship between stakeholders in the companies, the vital aspect of corporate governance has widened to encompass a broader group of stakeholders in both the financial and non-financial aspects of company‟s decision-making (Klettner et al., 2014). According to some studies, stakeholders support a degree of influence over defining the company‟s actions and the deeply held beliefs that companies have greater responsibilities to the society (Schneper and Guillén, 2004; Chen et al., 2009). Every action undertaken by the company, together with the associated risks arising from environmental and social issues are constantly observed by stakeholders (Knox and Maklan, 2004). Stakeholders place their faith on the company to conduct businesses in accordance with the best practices to retain a better corporate reputation (Soleimani et al., 2014). Most of the corporate governance codes emphasized on the stakeholder governance, particularly those that are closely related to social and environmental obligations (Wieland, 2005). Likewise, the Malaysian Corporate Governance Codes 2012 (Securities Commission, 2012) seeks to emphasize the principle of good corporate governance by amplifying the rapport of trust between stakeholders and companies.
just the shareholders, who are any person/group that can impact/be impacted by the decisions of a firm. According to Jensen and Meckling (1976) the stakeholder theory is in relation to the aspects of corporate wellness with emphasis on the activities and performance of a firm in terms of the capability to sustain the relationships it has with the diverse interested groups in its sphere of operations. This is not in agreement with the background of the norm that a firm is for improving the net-worth of the shareholders alone. However, in comparison, a firm has a role to itself as well as the other parties connected to for effectiveness and efficiency in order to take advantage of legitimate rights for existence (Jizi et al., 2014). In addition, this theory has assisted researchers to examine the difference between performance antecedents and outcomes, even though it has enhanced the basis for evaluating performance in a more all-inclusive manner since one stakeholder group or the other can have their satisfaction determined through a measure of performance or the other. This perspective of assessing firm performance is peculiar to different groups of firms (Carneiro et al., 2007) due to its ability to generate the background on which the various stakeholders evaluate the firms. Furthermore, in order to enhance the performance of the firm to the advantage of the stakeholders, the resources and capabilities owned are to be fully utilised alongside knowledge and information sharing through sustainability initiatives. This theory is, recommended for the benefits of creating a high level of awareness for its importance to an area of study like this, whereby it creates the needed perception for responsibility with respect to everyone group that is linked to a firm and vice versa. Consequently, the agency theory is to generate evidence as to the relationships between
Denmark is only a small part of the global bioeconomy, but it leads when it comes to the intensity of agricultural land use and production. The potential for conflicts that can only be resolved by regulation is high. About 62% of the land area is under agricultural management. At the same time Denmark has formed comparatively ambitious policies for a transition to renewable energy, including bioenergy , which are all policies that can increase pressure on land use and crop production systems. Agri- culture has been comprehensively regulated for decades to reduce the environmental impact of crop and livestock production. However, several conflicts exist and new con- flicts may arise with the increased focus on the bioeco- nomic transition . Governance relevant to the Danish bioeconomy is made up of a mix of public and private regulation, voluntary and mandatory schemes, and na- tional and supranational legislation. Altogether, this makes an important case for an analysis of the governance in place to ensure sustainability.
It would be impossible to attribute Glasgow’s ‘recovery’ to one specific strategy or policy; rather, it is commonly agreed that the revival of the city has depended on an approach which has been ‘holistic’ in terms of addressing social, cultural and economic issues, combined with a shift in the prevailing macro-economic conditions (Amin 2005). A central tenet of this approach has been the creation of ‘sustainable communities’. Sustainability has been a concept commonly associated with environmental concerns. Linked to Brundtland’s definition of development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs” (Brundtland Commission 1987), sustainability is commonly seen as a fundamental organisational principle in urban redevelopment. Crucially, it has been reconstructed to include ideas in relation to ‘community’, with the creation of “…sustainable communities at the heart of the Community Planning Process” i (Glasgow Economic Forum 2003: 23). As Raco emphasises:
The inter relationship between these two have become the major area of concentration in the current business world. Corporate sustainability been defined as the intra and intergenerational equity that ensure „eco justice‟ and „bring eco- efficiency‟(Blowﬁeld, M.; Murray, A.2008). Business sustainability emphasizes on the issues like environmental regulations, sustainable development, and taking care of stock holder‟s interest(Christoﬁ, et., al 2010). Corporate sustainability perceived as the ability of the companies to handle its governance and market presence in such a way however the stakeholders of the corporation benefited through establishment of eco-friendly production process, supporting employment generation and paying employees appropriate salary alongside with other common benefits (Sustentare 2010). The term sustainability can also be postulated as the way through which organizations minimizes negative effect relating to the environment, social and economic issues thereby enhancing the positive aspect to the best interest of the stockholders (Accenture, 2011) . Enterprise knows what they needed to be to be sustainable and what makes them distinctive from the other similar competitors and how the concept is applied to the industries concerned (T. Dyllick, K. Hockert‟s, 2002).