Search Results

In a university startup ecosystem, there are a number of stakeholders. The faculty founder is one of the key stakeholders, being one of the inventors of the innovation, a founder of the startup, and likely engaged with the startup’s product development and fundraising. They need to understand their motivations founding the company and expectations for the roles they can play in helping the company. They also need to understand the constraints placed on them in terms of conflict of interest and commitment. The entrepreneur is one of the key external stakeholders who typically partners with the faculty founder to launch and grow the startup. For entrepreneurs, they need to understand the nuances of working with a faculty founder as well as working with the university to license the innovation. For these two stakeholders, a number of “lessons learned” are provided experienced faculty founders and entrepreneurs. The final stakeholder is the university administration. They need to understand the types of programs and policies that can help build and support a thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem.

There are two broad ways to create a simply better reputation than one’s competitors, namely, being seen to be ‘best at something’ and/or ‘best for somebody’. Apple’s corporate reputation is based on being best at designing engaging user-interfaces for its various iProducts. In the old mainframe era of computing IBM was known as being best for many corporate managers as evidenced by the saying at this time – “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM”. To be clearly better or best requires a 30% advantage over competitors.

The linkages between society and the human environment generate normative challenges across at least three distinct dimensions: distribution and social equity, arrangements to institutionalize policy goals and objectives, and production of concrete plans of action. Deliberative democracy offers options for matching techniques to tasks. A process of juristic deliberation can identify widely supported normative principles and general propositions of law through adjudication by citizen juries of hypothetical cases involving environmental disputes. Deliberative polling, policy juries, and other minipublic techniques can identify and cultivate consensus underlying choices among competing policy models. Stakeholder partnerships can structure the kinds of social consensus needed for effective action, plans, and self-regulation. Deliberative democratic processes have potential to inform and legitimate environmental governance at each level in ways that respond to the challenges of ecological rationality, popular participation, and globalization. This model of deliberative policy development offers a coherent picture of a set of processes that lend concreteness and plausibility to the idea of consensus as a something more than a political ideal.

This chapter discusses how the UK government can encourage households to save for retirement, especially in a situation where many households rely on private pensions rather than social security for their retirement income. Retirement saving is considered important by citizens in the UK who are concerned about the gap between how much working-age individuals should save for retirement and what they actually save. The discussion focuses on two policy experiments in the last two decades, the Personal Pensions in April 1998 and Stakeholder Pensions in April 2001. It also explains the reform of Personal Pension Incentives in the Mid-1990s; rationale for Stakeholder Pensions; Stakeholder Pensions; and contribution ceilings, empirical analysis, econometric results, alternative explanations and interpretation, and conclusions.

Today, the term “multi-stakeholder initiative” (MSI) has mainstreamed into corporate social responsibility (CSR) practice, and the issue of whether to join an MSI is now a core consideration of civil society engagement strategies and government policy. Despite the rapid growth of MSIs, their conceptual and theoretical consensus as institutions remains weak. While each individual MSI undoubtedly operates within its own context and raises specific and unique issues, the author's discussions with individuals from government, industry and civil society involved in, or concerned by, MSIs has demonstrated that there are broad commonalities in the formation process, structure, implementation and membership patterns of an MSI. Understanding these commonalties allows for the development of a framework for analyzing whether MSIs are effective instruments for addressing the adverse impacts of industry. It also allows those involved in – or concerned by – an MSI to better understand how to craft the most robust initiatives. This chapter takes a necessary first step towards those goals by outlining the common development, design and implementation features of those MSIs that set standards to address the negative externalities of transnational business.

This chapter investigates how well the Council’s evolutionary development served in enabling it to satisfy the differing constituencies of support that form part of the landscape of film provision. Drawing on original interviews with senior figures from the UKFC and with key industry stakeholders, it assesses the challenges the organisation faced in handling a multiplicity of interest groups, concerns and expectations and how effectively the Council addressed competing economic, industrial and cultural objectives. This chapter also considers how the Council negotiated the various tensions between regional, national, European and international interests in an increasingly transnational film industry.

The second chapter details the ideas under the leaderships of John Smith and Tony Blair. It chronicles Smith’s short term in terms of new ideas and policy processes he began to develop. After Smith’s tragic death, this chapter analyses the rise of Blair and the ideas he engaged with before winning in 1997.

This chapter discusses the fundamental conflicts of interest that occur when the corporate sector gets involved in devising and influencing public health policy. Corporations spend other people’s – their shareholders’ – money, and are therefore governed by the ‘fiduciary imperative’ which requires then to put returns to their shareholders ahead of any other concern. It is therefore completely illogical to expect them to prioritise public welfare. This is the job of everyone else – government, civil society and citizens.

Stakeholder theory is one of the predominant theories on ethics for guiding the inclusion of stakeholders for organizations to balance their interests ethically. However, emerging phenomena, such as the increasing importance of organizations adopting novel forms of engagement like crowdsourcing, challenge stakeholder theory in substantial ways, primarily induced by the vagueness of the term “crowd” and how it could or should relate to the organization. In this chapter, we revise the extent to which stakeholder theory is applicable to crowdsourcing by identifying its limitations, so as to allow for a better understanding of the ethical challenges surrounding crowdsourcing. By so doing, we substantiate some of the ethical consequences of crowdsourcing and propose recommendations on how stakeholder theory can provide a response to such ethical dilemmas. We provide one of the first attempts to debate the role of stakeholder theory for future research directions in the context of crowdsourcing.