Shareholder values, not shareholder value : the role of 'ethical funds' and 'ethical entrepreneurs' in connecting shareholders' values with their investments

This article rebuts the still-common assumption that managers of capitalist entities have a duty, principally or even exclusively, to maximise the monetary return to investors on their investments. It argues that this view is based on a misleadingly simplistic conception of human values and motivation. Not only is acting solely to maximise long-term shareholder value difficult, it displays, at best, banal single-mindedness and, at worst, sociopathy. In fact, real investors and managers have rich constellations of values that should be taken account of in all their decisions, including their business decisions. Awareness of our values, and public expression of our commitment to exemplify them, make for healthier investment and, in the long term, a healthier corporate world. Individuals and funds investing on the basis of such values, in companies that express their own, display humanity rather than pathology. Preamble I always enjoyed the discussions that Michael Whincop and I had about the interaction of ethics and economics. Each of us could see an important role for these disciplines, as well as our common discipline of law. We also shared an appreciation of the institutional context within which much of the drama of life is played out. In understanding the behaviour of individuals and the choices they make, it seemed axiomatic to each of us that ethics and economics have a lot to say. This was also true of the institutions in which they operate. Michael ·had a strong interest in 'the new institutional economics' I and I had a strong interest in 'institutionalising ethics' right through the 1990s.' This formed the basis of some fascinating and fruitful discussions. Professor Charles Sampford is Director, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Foundation Professor of Law at Griffith University and President, International Institute for Public Ethics.DrVirginia Berry is a Research Fellow at theKey Centre for Ethics, Law,Justice andGovernance, Griffith University. Oliver Williamson, one of the leading proponents of the 'new institutional economics', published a number of influential works - see Williamson (1975, 1995,1996). Sampford (1991),' pp 185-222. The primary focus of discussions on institutionalising ethics has been in public sectorethics: see, for example, Preston and Sampford (2002); Sampford (1994), pp 114-38. Some discussion has, however, moved beyond the public sector to include business - see Sampford 200408299

Early childhood education for sustainability : why it matters, what it is, and how whole centre action research and systems thinking can help

The global financial crisis, global pandemics, global warming and peak oil are indicative of a world facing major environmental, social and economic problems. At the same time, world population continues to rise and global inequalities deepen. Children are the most vulnerable to the impacts of unsustainable living with specific harms arising because of their physical and cognitive vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, children do not have to be victims in the face of these challenges. Education, including early childhood education, has an important role to in building resilience and capabilities in children that equip them as active and informed citizens now and in the future and who are capable of contributing to healthy and sustainable ways of living. Drawing on educational change literature, action research, education for sustainability, health promotion and systems theory, this paper outlines three strategies that can help reorient early childhood education towards sustainability. One strategy is the adoption of whole centre approaches to sustainability and education for sustainability. This means working across the whole of a centre’s operations – curriculum and pedagogy, physical and social environments, its partnerships and community connections. The second strategy – applied in conjunction with the first – is the use of action research to investigate the early childhood setting and to create the desired changes. The third strategy is the adoption of systems thinking as a way of leveraging support and momentum for change so that education for sustainability goes beyond the initiatives of individual teachers and centres, and becomes a systems-wide imperative.

On PAR : Using Participatory Action Research to Improve Early Intervention

This manual is designed to assist human service practitioners and agencies, and the communities they work with, to enhance their skills in undertaking Participatory Action Research, and, in so doing improve the situations of people who are vulnerable. It utilises insights derived from a number of Australian Government funded programs, most notably Reconnect, NAYSS and Household Organisational Management Expenses (HOME) Advice.

Community voices, votes and action

The diversity of community voices in the SEQ ‘bellwether region’ has grown from a muted murmur in the mid twentieth century supporting provision of urban services, rural conservation and green belts, to the current clamour against over-development, and in favour of protecting local and regional open space, wetlands and natural habitats. This in turn has often resulted in vigorous campaigns against unpopular roads, dams, dumps and tall buildings. In the last twenty years community issues have played a major part in local government elections throughout the region and have even helped unseat (in 1995-1996) a state government which discounted their authenticity and community resolve.

The constitutional power to make war: domestic legal issues raised by Australia's action in Iraq

The legal power to declare war has traditionally been a part of a prerogative to be exercised solely on advice that passed from the King to the Governor-General no later than 1942. In 2003, the Governor- General was not involved in the decision by the Prime Minister and Cabinet to commit Australian troops to the invasion of Iraq. The authors explore the alternative legal means by which Australia can go to war - means the government in fact used in 2003 - and the constitutional basis of those means. While the prerogative power can be regulated and/or devolved by legislation, and just possibly by practice, there does not seem to be a sound legal basis to assert that the power has been devolved to any other person. It appears that in 2003 the Defence Minister used his legal powers under the Defence Act 1903 (Cth) (as amended in 1975) to give instructions to the service head(s). A powerful argument could be made that the relevant sections of the Defence Act were not intended to be used for the decision to go to war, and that such instructions are for peacetime or in bello decisions. If so, the power to make war remains within the prerogative to be exercised on advice. Interviews with the then Governor-General indicate that Prime Minister Howard had planned to take the matter to the Federal Executive Council 'for noting', but did not do so after the Governor-General sought the views of the then Attorney-General about relevant issues of international law. The exchange raises many issues, but those of interest concern the kinds of questions the Governor-General could and should ask about proposed international action and whether they in any way mirror the assurances that are uncontroversially required for domestic action. In 2003, the Governor-General's scrutiny was the only independent scrutiny available because the legality of the decision to go to war was not a matter that could be determined in the High Court, and the federal government had taken action in March 2002 that effectively prevented the matter coming before the International Court of Justice