Student Thesis Level: Master’s Thesis in Business Administration Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) networking : A case study on why members join CSR network and why are they sharing their knowledge

Purpose – This research focuses on finding the reasons, why members from different sectors join a cross-sector/multi-stakeholder CSR network and what motivates them to share (or not to share) their knowledge of CSR and their best practices. Design/methodology/approach – Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of the largest cross-sector CSR network in Sweden. The sample base of 15 people was chosen to be able to represent a wider variety of members from each participating sectors. As well as the CEO of the intermediary organization was interviewed. The interviews were conducted via email and telephone. Findings – The findings include several reasons linked to the business case of CSR such as stakeholder pressure, competitive advantage, legitimacy and reputation as well as new reasons like the importance of CSR, and the access of further knowledge in the field. Further reasons are in line with members wanting to join a network, such as access to contact or having personal contacts. As to why members are sharing their CSR knowledge, the findings indicate to inspire others, to show CSR commitment, to be visible, it leads to business opportunity and the access of others knowledge, and because it was requested. Reasons for not sharing their knowledge would be the lack of opportunity, lack of time and the lack of experience to do so. Originality/value – The research contributes to existing studies, which focused on Corporate Social Responsibility and cross-sector networking as well as to inter-organizational knowledge sharing in the field of CSR.

Towards Presidential Rule in Ukraine : Hybrid Regime Dynamics under Semi-Presidentialism

This article sets out to analyse recent regime developments in Ukraine in relation to semi-presidentialism. The article asks: to what extent and in what ways theoretical arguments against semi-presidentialism (premier-presidential and president-parliamentary systems) are relevant for understanding the changing directions of the Ukrainian regime since the 1990s? The article also reviews the by now overwhelming evidence suggesting that President Yanukovych is turning Ukraine into a more authoritarian hybrid regime and raises the question to what extent the president-parliamentary system might serve this end. The article argues that both kinds of semi-presidentialism have, in different ways, exacerbated rather than mitigated institutional conflict and political stalemate. The return to the president-parliamentary system in 2010 – the constitutional arrangement with the most dismal record of democratisation – was a step in the wrong direction. The premier-presidential regime was by no means ideal, but it had at least two advantages. It weakened the presidential dominance and it explicitly anchored the survival of the government in parliament. The return to the 1996 constitution ties in well with the notion that President Viktor Yanukovych has embarked on an outright authoritarian path.

Demokrati eller presidentdiktatur? : Konstitutionella vägval i postkommunistiska länder

While authoritarian presidents prevail under heavily president-oriented constitutions throughout the post-Soviet region, democracy along parliamentary lines triumphs in Central Europe. This article discusses the constitutional pattern among the post-communist countries on the basis of two general questions: First, how can we explain why strong presidential constitutions dominate throughout the post-Soviet region whereas constrained presidencies and governments anchored in parliament have become the prevailing option in Central Europe? Second, and interlinked with the first question, why have so many post-communist countries (in the post-Soviet region as well as in Central Europe) chosen neither parliamentarism nor presidentialism, but instead semi-presidential arrangements whereby a directly elected president is provided with considerable powers and coexists with a prime minister? The analysis indicates that both historical-institutional and actor-oriented factors are relevant here. Key factors have been regime transition, pre-communist era constitutions and leaders, as well as short-term economic and political considerations. With differing strengths and in partly different ways, these factors seem to have affected the actors’ preferences and final constitutional compromises.