Managerial LawTable of Contents for Managerial Law. List of articles from the current issue, including Just Accepted (EarlyCite)https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0309-0558/vol/49/iss/5/6?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestManagerial LawEmerald Publishing LimitedManagerial LawManagerial Lawhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/proxy/containerImg?link=/resource/publication/journal/d01fd9b01e9dde8bd3dc247afbfb7218/UNKNOWNhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0309-0558/vol/49/iss/5/6?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestNew processes of governance: cases for deliberative decision‐making?https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841322/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to explore the new forms of governance that are emerging to facilitate corporate sustainability. The research methodology draws on multiple case study research, examining the research question through the lens of two case examples: a government/industry partner program, itself comprising multiple cases, and an industry consultative committee. While these cases involve different motivations for collaborative decision‐making, they each involve inter‐organisational decision‐making. Such decision‐making requires the establishment of new processes of governance. More case examples need to be explored and subjected to more detailed discourse analysis. Suggestions for new decision‐making models that could be usefully taken up by governments and corporations to address stakeholder disputes. The paper makes suggestions for appropriate forms of governance by process if sustainability outcomes are to be achieved that are acceptable to a range of corporate stakeholders.New processes of governance: cases for deliberative decision‐making?
Suzanne Benn
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.196-205

The purpose of this paper is to explore the new forms of governance that are emerging to facilitate corporate sustainability.

The research methodology draws on multiple case study research, examining the research question through the lens of two case examples: a government/industry partner program, itself comprising multiple cases, and an industry consultative committee.

While these cases involve different motivations for collaborative decision‐making, they each involve inter‐organisational decision‐making. Such decision‐making requires the establishment of new processes of governance.

More case examples need to be explored and subjected to more detailed discourse analysis.

Suggestions for new decision‐making models that could be usefully taken up by governments and corporations to address stakeholder disputes.

The paper makes suggestions for appropriate forms of governance by process if sustainability outcomes are to be achieved that are acceptable to a range of corporate stakeholders.

]]>
New processes of governance: cases for deliberative decision‐making?10.1108/03090550710841322Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Suzanne BennManagerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841322https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841322/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Dynamic evolution in public‐private partnershipshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841331/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThis paper seeks to examine the insights that the individual agency perspective offers to the study of public‐private partnerships (P3s). It extends prior research, which has primarily adopted an economic and structural perspective, by considering the ways by which individual actors involved in these complex arrangements can shape their evolutionary path. This conceptual paper identifies the key research issues and questions in the P3 literature and highlights how these concerns can be further illuminated by the insights offered through the individual agency perspective. The paper identifies four key issues in the P3 literature questions as the antecedents of P3s, pre‐formation processes, governance models and mechanisms, and evolution and adaptation. Introduction of the individual agency perspective to these research concerns highlights additional potentially explanatory factors for P3 formation and successful adaptation. The paper demonstrates that considering this perspective alongside current explanations can extend our current thinking and usefully add depth, breadth and linkage to P3 research. This research challenges the current conceptions of P3 governance as one of choosing the appropriate structural option. It offers agency considerations at each stage in the sequence of P3 process and argues that individual capability and action can influence the success and effectiveness of these arrangements. This research introduces a managerial perspective to the study of P3s and reframes the current thinking around governance of these forms. This contrasts with the more economic and structural agendas of public policy research.Dynamic evolution in public‐private partnerships
Kate Joyner
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.206-217

This paper seeks to examine the insights that the individual agency perspective offers to the study of public‐private partnerships (P3s). It extends prior research, which has primarily adopted an economic and structural perspective, by considering the ways by which individual actors involved in these complex arrangements can shape their evolutionary path.

This conceptual paper identifies the key research issues and questions in the P3 literature and highlights how these concerns can be further illuminated by the insights offered through the individual agency perspective.

The paper identifies four key issues in the P3 literature questions as the antecedents of P3s, pre‐formation processes, governance models and mechanisms, and evolution and adaptation. Introduction of the individual agency perspective to these research concerns highlights additional potentially explanatory factors for P3 formation and successful adaptation. The paper demonstrates that considering this perspective alongside current explanations can extend our current thinking and usefully add depth, breadth and linkage to P3 research.

This research challenges the current conceptions of P3 governance as one of choosing the appropriate structural option. It offers agency considerations at each stage in the sequence of P3 process and argues that individual capability and action can influence the success and effectiveness of these arrangements.

This research introduces a managerial perspective to the study of P3s and reframes the current thinking around governance of these forms. This contrasts with the more economic and structural agendas of public policy research.

]]>
Dynamic evolution in public‐private partnerships10.1108/03090550710841331Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Kate JoynerManagerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841331https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841331/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Multinational oil companies' CSR initiatives in Nigeriahttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841340/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe purpose of this paper is to critically examine the multinational oil companies' (MOCs) corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in Nigeria. Its special focus is to investigate the scepticism of stakeholders in the producing communities about the long‐term effect and the beneficiaries of the oil companies' CSR/community development initiatives. This paper employs a qualitative methodology, drawing on semi‐structured interviews conducted in Nigeria and London. The field work was carried out in Nigeria (Abuja, Lagos and Port‐Harcourt) and in London, UK. Visits were made to the head offices of the MOCs; Ministry of Petroleum and the Nigeria National Petroleum Commission; and the office of The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People in the Niger Delta. In London, Shell International Office was visited. The study found that expectations of host communities in the Niger Delta for CSR/community development initiatives are greater. The communities above all want social development projects that provide hope of a stable and prosperous future. The companies, on the other hand, have embraced development initiatives primarily in order to demonstrate that they are socially responsible. If the host communities do not feel that the CSR projects will create a sustainable economic development, they will keep agitating for change and create an hostile environment for multinational enterprises (MNEs). This research adds to the literature on MNEs' CSR initiatives in developing countries and rationale for demands for social projects by host communities. It concludes that business has an obligation to help in solving problems of public concern.Multinational oil companies' CSR initiatives in Nigeria
Gabriel Eweje
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.218-235

The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the multinational oil companies' (MOCs) corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives in Nigeria. Its special focus is to investigate the scepticism of stakeholders in the producing communities about the long‐term effect and the beneficiaries of the oil companies' CSR/community development initiatives.

This paper employs a qualitative methodology, drawing on semi‐structured interviews conducted in Nigeria and London. The field work was carried out in Nigeria (Abuja, Lagos and Port‐Harcourt) and in London, UK. Visits were made to the head offices of the MOCs; Ministry of Petroleum and the Nigeria National Petroleum Commission; and the office of The Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People in the Niger Delta. In London, Shell International Office was visited.

The study found that expectations of host communities in the Niger Delta for CSR/community development initiatives are greater. The communities above all want social development projects that provide hope of a stable and prosperous future. The companies, on the other hand, have embraced development initiatives primarily in order to demonstrate that they are socially responsible.

If the host communities do not feel that the CSR projects will create a sustainable economic development, they will keep agitating for change and create an hostile environment for multinational enterprises (MNEs).

This research adds to the literature on MNEs' CSR initiatives in developing countries and rationale for demands for social projects by host communities. It concludes that business has an obligation to help in solving problems of public concern.

]]>
Multinational oil companies' CSR initiatives in Nigeria10.1108/03090550710841340Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Gabriel EwejeManagerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841340https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841340/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
The process of governance: through a practice lenshttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841359/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe paper's purpose is to identify the inappropriateness of the current model of regulation of corporate governance, which applies worldwide; and inherent paradoxes in the five areas of best practice in corporate governance. This is a review paper building new conceptualization for research into governance. The paper identifies the origins of the issues with weaknesses in the ontological and epistemological base for theorizing about corporate governance and its regulation. It suggests an alternative theoretical basis, identifying ways forward for developing theoretically aligned best practice along with regulation that properly reflects the complexity of the post‐modern business world. The paper calls for a fresh approach to governance theorizing for regulation and best‐practice through considering governance praxis rather than structure and the reconceptualization of governance as a process of systematically balancing out tensions in order to effect good governance. Governance research and regulation requires reframing so that good theory can improve practice. The paper goes against the conventional wisdom in governance research, falling in with more advanced thinking for practice‐based studies of organising.The process of governance: through a practice lens
Clive Smallman
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.236-248

The paper's purpose is to identify the inappropriateness of the current model of regulation of corporate governance, which applies worldwide; and inherent paradoxes in the five areas of best practice in corporate governance.

This is a review paper building new conceptualization for research into governance. The paper identifies the origins of the issues with weaknesses in the ontological and epistemological base for theorizing about corporate governance and its regulation. It suggests an alternative theoretical basis, identifying ways forward for developing theoretically aligned best practice along with regulation that properly reflects the complexity of the post‐modern business world.

The paper calls for a fresh approach to governance theorizing for regulation and best‐practice through considering governance praxis rather than structure and the reconceptualization of governance as a process of systematically balancing out tensions in order to effect good governance.

Governance research and regulation requires reframing so that good theory can improve practice.

The paper goes against the conventional wisdom in governance research, falling in with more advanced thinking for practice‐based studies of organising.

]]>
The process of governance: through a practice lens10.1108/03090550710841359Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Clive SmallmanManagerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841359https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841359/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Modeling the Chinese family firm and minority shareholder protectionhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841368/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestThe paper aims to explore the extent to which the legal experience of minority shareholder actions in Hong Kong supports the sociological model of the Chinese family firm as developed by Wong Siu‐lun and reports some preliminary findings for the period 1980‐1995. This paper is based upon the analysis of 275 minority shareholder petitions in the High Court of Hong Kong between the years 1980 and 1995 inclusive. It also draws upon material from a questionnaire sent to law firms involved in those petitions and interviews with members of the Hong Kong judiciary with experience of hearing minority shareholder cases, members of the legal profession and accounting and company secretarial professions directly or indirectly involved in the administration of companies in Hong Kong and regulators. The findings indicate that the problematic early, emergent stage of the model as described by Wong Siu‐lun is quite accurate. Whilst there is considerable support for some aspects of the model of the Chinese family firm, the experience indicates a number of complex dynamics at play, some of which the model does not take into account. However, the findings, at least by implication, do point to the cohesive strength of the Chinese family firm with occasional fault lines resulting in some “disputes” of earthquake proportions which may rumble on in some cases for years. The findings demonstrate the usefulness of lifecycle modeling of the family and other type of corporate firm. It also demonstrates some of the complex subtleties at play. The findings also have implications for the law matters thesis of La Porta et al. This is one of the first studies to actually examine the legal experience of minority shareholder protection in a particular jurisdiction (Hong Kong) by examining the petitions and writs actually filed and relating them to a sociological model of the Chinese Family firm.Modeling the Chinese family firm and minority shareholder protection
Philip Lawton
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.249-271

The paper aims to explore the extent to which the legal experience of minority shareholder actions in Hong Kong supports the sociological model of the Chinese family firm as developed by Wong Siu‐lun and reports some preliminary findings for the period 1980‐1995.

This paper is based upon the analysis of 275 minority shareholder petitions in the High Court of Hong Kong between the years 1980 and 1995 inclusive. It also draws upon material from a questionnaire sent to law firms involved in those petitions and interviews with members of the Hong Kong judiciary with experience of hearing minority shareholder cases, members of the legal profession and accounting and company secretarial professions directly or indirectly involved in the administration of companies in Hong Kong and regulators.

The findings indicate that the problematic early, emergent stage of the model as described by Wong Siu‐lun is quite accurate. Whilst there is considerable support for some aspects of the model of the Chinese family firm, the experience indicates a number of complex dynamics at play, some of which the model does not take into account. However, the findings, at least by implication, do point to the cohesive strength of the Chinese family firm with occasional fault lines resulting in some “disputes” of earthquake proportions which may rumble on in some cases for years.

The findings demonstrate the usefulness of lifecycle modeling of the family and other type of corporate firm. It also demonstrates some of the complex subtleties at play. The findings also have implications for the law matters thesis of La Porta et al.

This is one of the first studies to actually examine the legal experience of minority shareholder protection in a particular jurisdiction (Hong Kong) by examining the petitions and writs actually filed and relating them to a sociological model of the Chinese Family firm.

]]>
Modeling the Chinese family firm and minority shareholder protection10.1108/03090550710841368Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Philip LawtonManagerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841368https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841368/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Guide to the Age Discrimination Regulations 2006https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841377/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestGuide to the Age Discrimination Regulations 2006Guide to the Age Discrimination Regulations 2006
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.272-272]]>
Guide to the Age Discrimination Regulations 200610.1108/03090550710841377Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Managerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841377https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841377/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Key Employment Cases for 2007https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841386/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestKey Employment Cases for 2007Key Employment Cases for 2007
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.273-273]]>
Key Employment Cases for 200710.1108/03090550710841386Managerial Law2007-09-18© 2007 Managerial Law495/62007-09-1810.1108/03090550710841386https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/03090550710841386/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Introductionhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.001/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestIntroductionIntroduction
James Kirkbride, Geraint Howells
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.-]]>
Introduction10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.001Managerial Law2007-01-01© 2007 James KirkbrideGeraint HowellsManagerial Law495/62007-01-0110.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.001https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.001/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Processes of governance across multiple stakeholders: performance, control and innovation: an introductionhttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.002/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestProcesses of governance across multiple stakeholders: performance, control and innovation: an introductionProcesses of governance across multiple stakeholders: performance, control and innovation: an introduction
Clive Smallman, Suzanne Benn, Stephen T.T. Teo
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.-]]>
Processes of governance across multiple stakeholders: performance, control and innovation: an introduction10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.002Managerial Law2007-01-01© 2007 Clive SmallmanSuzanne BennStephen T.T. TeoManagerial Law495/62007-01-0110.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.002https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.002/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007
Call for papershttps://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.003/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatestCall for papersCall for papers
Professor James Kirkbride, Professor Geraint Howells
Managerial Law, Vol. 49, No. 5/6, pp.-]]>
Call for papers10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.003Managerial Law2007-01-01© 2007 Professor James KirkbrideProfessor Geraint HowellsManagerial Law495/62007-01-0110.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.003https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ml.2007.01049eaa.003/full/html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=rss_journalLatest© 2007