Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: lessons from the land of OZ

  • Published:
Journal of Management & Governance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Australia corporate boards and senior management have been spirited from the Land of Milk and Honey (profit) to the Land of OZ. They are to embark on a journey, following the “yellow-brick road”, a proverbial path to a promised land of one’s hopes and dreams, in order to find brains, a heart and courage. The effect of new regulations introduced in Australia to curtail corporate misbehaviour is detailed by storytelling. The Wizard of OZ is the title of a story written by L. Frank Baum and published in 1899. In 1939, Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios made a movie of the story. I have used The Wizard of Oz to argue that corporate boards and senior management need to make decisions using a balance of intellect (brains), emotionality (heart), and a sense of purpose (courage). The inspiration for using Baum’s story, as an analogy for the transformation needed in corporate boards and senior management, comes from Biberman and Whitty (Journal of Organisational Change Management 10(2):130–188, 1997). This research is based on interviews with Board members and non-executive directors from five companies listed in the Business Review Weekly (BRW) Top Twenty-five Companies in Australia (2007) and a range of secondary data sources. The financial and reputational success of the organisation and its members is out of balance with the human and social costs and benefits. Respondents confirmed that board members and senior management should willingly provide information about the corporation and its activities to its stakeholders, that information and data should be transparent, the true extent of director remuneration should be revealed and that financial reporting should be true and accurate. Board members and senior management can be assisted to operate in a way that observes socially responsible values and balances the obligation for profit maximisation with corporate social responsibilities (CSR). This study provides steps that organisations can take to achieve a balance of intellect, emotionality and sense of purpose and therefore realise their corporate social responsibility. The results of this empirical and secondary research suggest a method that may be used to make board members and senior managers more aware of their corporate social responsibilities and curtail corporate misbehaviour where the introduction of a range of new regulations has had little effect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organisational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Measures of Australia’s progress cat no. 1370.0. Canberra: Australin Government Publishing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, P. (2002). Rich kids: How the Murdochs & Packers Lost $950 million in One.Tel. Milsons Point, Sydney: Bantam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, L. F. (1899). The wizard of Oz. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biberman, J., & Whitty, M. (1997). A postmodern spiritual future for work. Journal of Organisational Change Management, 10(2), 130–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organisation: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Business Review Weekly. (BRW). (2007). Top twenty-five companies in Australia in 2006 and 2007, Business Review Weekly. November 22–December 12, p. 62.

  • Connors, R., Smith, T., & Hickman, C. R. (1994). The Oz principle: Getting results through individual and organisational accountability. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (Audit Reform and Corporate Disclosure) Bill. (2003). (the Bill) also referred to as CLERP9 (1 July, 2004).

  • Corporate Responsibility Index. (2003). St James ethics centre: Sydney. http://www.corporate-responsibility.com.au/results/2003_results.asp, accessed September 12, 2008.

  • Corporate Responsibility Index. (2007). St James ethics centre: Sydney. http://www.corporate-responsibility.com.au/results/2007_results.asp, accessed September 12, 2008.

  • de Piedade, L., & Thomas, A. (2006). The case for corporate responsibility: Arguments from the literature, SA. Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(2), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (1995). The social contract: Norms for a corporate conscience. In M. W. Hoffman & R. E. Frederick (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality (3rd ed., pp. 154–157). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission Directorate General for the Internal Market. (2004). Transparency directive 2004/109/EC. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1995). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In M. W. Hoffman & R. E. Frederick (Eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality (3rd ed., pp. 145–154). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., & Gilbert, D. R. (1988). Corporate strategy and the search for ethics. New York: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. E., & Stahelski, A. J. (1988). The systematic measurement of French and Raven’s bases of social power in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18(5), 375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53(1–2), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E., & Matthews, J. B. (1982). Can a corporation have a conscience. Harvard Business Review, 60(1), 132–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graycar, A., & Smith, A. (2002). Identifying and responding to corporate fraud. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh, A., & Wolfers, J. (2006). Happiness and the human development index: Australia is not a paradox. NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research) Working Paper, no. 11925.

  • Moir, L. (2001). What do we mean by corporate social responsibility? Corporate Governance, 1(2), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T., & Austin, A. (1985). A passion for excellence. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queensland Council of Social Service. (2008). Budget submission 2007–2008. Kelvin Grove, Queensland: Queensland Council of Social Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. B. (1988). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 8–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarre, R. (2002). Responding to corporate collapses: Is there a role for corporate social responsibility? Deakin Law Review, 7(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaef, A. W., & Fassel, D. (1988). The addictive organisation. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P., Kleiner, A., & Roberts, C. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York, NY: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, V. D. (2004). Board of director characteristics, institutional ownership and fraud: Evidence from Australia. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 23(2), 105–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2002). What makes great boards great. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 106–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Public Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002)). USA, enacted July 30, 2002. US Securities and Exchange Commission.

  • Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, & C. Lundberg (Eds.), Reframing organisational culture (pp. 58–76). Beverley Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Witherell, B. (2002). Corporate governance and responsibility: Foundations of market integrity. OECD Observer, 234, 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s. (2007). CSR annual report. Brussels: WBCSD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadkovich, J. (2007). Mandatory requirements, voluntary rules and “please explain”: A corporate governance quagmire. Deakin Law Review, 12(2), 23–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon Kemp.

Additional information

OZ is a slang term for the country of Australia and this term has been borrowed and incorporated in the title of this study to indicate that the research conducted pertains to Australian companies. Although the focus of this study is on Australia, it is intended that senior managers and corporate board members internationally, should consider its message and conclusions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kemp, S. Corporate governance and corporate social responsibility: lessons from the land of OZ. J Manag Gov 15, 539–556 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9133-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-010-9133-6

Keywords

Navigation