Accountability for Responsibility: An assessment of the Transnational Capitalist Class' role in driving a Global CSR Agenda

Globalisation has led to the establishment of a new hierarchy of leadership. At the helm is the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) , which oversees the direction of Multi National Corporations (MNCs) at a global level. Can the TCC, as leaders in the governance agenda, drive a global CSR agenda, or, perhaps, the question should be: do they want to drive a CSR agenda?
The hypothesis of this article is that, as the structure of global leadership and governance has changed, so too has the potential for aligning national CSR agendas to a globally accepted standard. This is unlikely due to systematic limitations inherent in a transitional structural realignment of global leadership. Whereas the design of global leadership has changed due to processes of globalization, the bodies that can regulate this leadership have not developed at the same pace. Regulation on issues such as CSR remains at national, federal and supra-­-national levels suggesting that TCCs have a free reign in dictating agenda. This new class (TCC) may bear a responsibility for CSR but there is a lack of accountability if it is not fulfilled.

Mapping public sector organizations:An agenda for future research

This article summarizes the key findings from the five mapping case studies presented in this special issue and relates them back to the conceptual, definitional, and theoretical issues presented in the opening article (MacCarthaigh & Roness, 2012). In so doing, the article considers the alternative ways in which organizational change can best be captured, mapped, and explained and the key issues to be considered when conducting such exercises. As well as identifying how the case studies have advanced the possibilities for mapping public sector organizational change over time in a cross-national context and the benefits this offers for other aspects of public administration research, the article identifies some impediments to future research and collaboration in the field and suggests ways to overcome them. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Conceptualizing a transformative research agenda

Transformative consumer researchers seek to enhance consumer well-being by tackling some of the more difficult and intractable social problems and getting the results into the hands of stakeholders who can apply the research findings. Although traditional research approaches offer a viable path for doing research seeking positive social change, alternative research approaches exist that are uniquely suited to the challenges of Transformative Consumer Research. This article examines the standard research process from the perspective of a transformative research agenda to highlight steps in the process that can be better adapted and suggests innovations inspired from other translational research programs.

Afterword::Innovation, Ecological Modernisation and the ‘Post-Conflict’ Policy Agenda

Perhaps the weakest dimension of the ‘triple bottom line’ understanding of
sustainable development has been the ‘economic’ dimension. Much of the thinking
about the appropriate ‘political economy’ to underpin sustainable development has
been either utopian (as in some ‘environmental’ political views) or ‘business as usual’ approaches. Rejecting both of these utopian and realist views, it is clear from the papers presented here and the conference debates that something like ‘ecological modernisation’ is the preferred conceptualisation of ‘sustainable development’ within policy circles in Northern Ireland, the UK and other European states.

Big Society as Big Government: Cameron's Governmentality Agenda

Cameron’s flagship policy of the ‘Big Society’ rests on a society/government dichotomy, diagnosing a ‘broken society’ caused by ‘big government’ having assumed the role communities once played. The remedy is greater social responsibility and the ‘Big Society’. This article argues that the dichotomy is
deceptive. We aim to show that the Big Society is big government, as it employs techniques for managing the conduct of individuals and communities such that the mentality of government, far from being removed or reduced, is bettered and made more efficient. To illustrate this, we explore two major initiatives: the National Citizen Service and the Community Resilience programme. These
projects demonstrate how practices of informing and guiding the conduct of individuals both produce agents and normalise certain values, resulting in the population being better known and controlled. Thus, far from lessening government and empowering people, the Big Society extends governmentality
throughout the social body.

Intellectual Property and the EU’s Deep Trade Agenda

The EU is considered to be one of the main proponents of what has been called the deep trade agenda—that is, the push for further trade liberalization with an emphasis on the removal of domestic non-tariff regulatory measures affecting trade, as opposed to the traditional focus on the removal of trade barriers at borders. As negotiations on the Doha Development Round have stalled, the EU has attempted to achieve these aims by entering into comprehensive free trade agreements (FTAs) that are not only limited exclusively to tariffs but also extend to non-tariff barriers, including services, intellectual property rights (IPRs), competition, and investment. These FTAs place great emphasis on regulatory convergence as a means to secure greater market openings. The paper examines the EU's current external trade policy in the area of IP, particularly its attempts to promote its own regulatory model for the protection of IP rights through trade agreements. By looking at the IP enforcement provisions of such agreements, the article also examines how the divisive issues that are currently hindering the progress of negotiations at WTO level, including the demands from developing countries to maintain a degree of autonomy in the area of IP regulation as well as the need to balance IP protection with human rights protection, are being dealt with in recent EU FTAs.

Short comment: To Nail a Jellyfish? Finding a progressive agenda for EU anti-discrimination law

The title of this short (about 4500 words) intervention translates to "To Nail a Jellyfish? Finding a progressive agenda for EU anti-discrimination law". I engage with those criticising EU anti-discrimination law as yet another emanation of the EU's "neo-liberal" nature which fails to establish a viable social policy regime. I criticise this in two directions. First, I take issue with the theory that anti-discrimination law and policy has to be part of social policy. Actually, the field has a mission which differs from social policy, in that it addresses disadvantage resulting from othering, combating stereotypes as well as promoting accomodation of difference. Second, I show how the critique of judicialisation of policy is not unique to anti-discrimination law and policy. The so called turn to rights based employment law has been criticised under this mantra by those who fear that collective labour law mechanisms will become less prevalent. Further, those who have engaged with anti-discrimination law for a much longer time than those criticising it have also devised means to overcome the individualistic tendencies of rights adjudication. They have (partly successfully) argued in favour of establishing equality bodies and creating positive obligations. Thus, the critique neglects the field it takes on, and does not accept the fact that anti-discrimination law and policy must be considered a field in its own right instead of the servant of social law and policy.
Now, this is more a summary than an abstract - since I realise that not everyone reads German.