Andreas Rasche

TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that the dynamic aspects of standardization are underrepresented in the scholarly discourse and identify the main types of tension associated with standardization and the dynamics they generate in each of those three areas.

TL;DR: In this article, the authors provide a comprehensive overview about the different types of accountability standards and discuss their role as part of a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility, arguing that IAS can advance corporate responsibility on a global level because they contribute to the closure of some omnipresent governance gaps.

Abstract: This article takes stock of the discourse on ‘political CSR’ (PCSR), reconsiders some of its assumptions, and suggests new directions for what we call ‘PCSR 2.0’. We start with a definition of PCSR, focusing on firms’ contribution to public goods. We then discuss historical antecedents to the debate and outline the original economic and political context. The following section explores emerging changes in the institutional context relevant to PCSR and reconsiders some of the assumptions underlying Habermas’ thesis of the postnational constellation. This highlights some neglected issues in previous works on PCSR, including the influence of nationalism and fundamentalism, the role of various types of business organisations, the return of government regulation, the complexity of institutional contexts, the efficiency of private governance, the financialization and digitalization of the economy, and the relevance of managerial sensemaking. Finally, we discuss the contributions to this special issue and relate them to the newly emerging research agenda.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors provide a comprehensive overview about the different types of accountability standards and discuss their role as part of a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility, arguing that IAS can advance corporate responsibility on a global level because they contribute to the closure of some omnipresent governance gaps.

TL;DR: In this paper, the meaning and significance of the term "social practice" and its relation to strategy-as-practice research from the perspective of social theory is explored, and a genealogical analysis revealing the historical-contingent conditions of its creation is presented.