Arguments can be made on both sides of the question of whether a stringent global corporate environmental standard represents a competitive asset or liability for multinational enterprises (MNEs) investing in emerging and developing markets. Analyzing the global environmental standards of a sample of U.S.-based MNEs in relation to their stock market performance, we find that firms adopting a single stringent global environmental standard have much higher market values, as measured by Tobin’s q, than firms defaulting to less stringent, or poorly enforced host country standards. Thus, developing countries that use lax environmental regulations to attract foreign direct investment may end up attracting poorer quality, and perhaps less competitive, firms. Our results also suggest that externalities are incorporated to a significant extent in firm valuation. We discuss plausible reasons for this observation.

UNRISD Discussion Papers are preliminary documents circulated in a limited number of copies to stimulate discussion and critical comment.

Caledon publications are available on our website at www.caledoninst.org

This dissertation focuses on stakeholder relationships and an organization’s commitment to communities, and ultimately, corporate social responsibility. The relationship between corporations and the community stakeholder is being investigated for a number of reasons. First, the concept of corporate social responsibility suggests an organization has responsibilities beyond increasing operating profit and satisfying stockholders to addressing issues of society as a whole. Are organizations responsible to communities and society? If so, how and with whom do organizations attempt to address societal needs and issues? Second, stakeholder theorists suggest an organization’s social responsibility is achieved, in part, by paying attention to all stakeholders of the organization, stakeholders including the community. Using a narrative approach as a guide, this study addresses the question of whether organizations consider the community a stakeholder. In most cases, as the iv reader will see, the answer is yes. Yet, knowing organizations do consider the

On behalf of:

Abstract not found

This article examines current Chicago school reform in the context of economic restructuring, the drive to become a “global city, ” and the cultural politics of race. The discussion focuses on high stakes testing and accountability policies and on new, special programs and schools. My analysis is based on data from four qualitative case studies of Chicago elementary schools, school system data on the nature and geographic distribution of differentiated programs and schools, and examination of labor force trends and economic development policies. Contrary to the discourse of equity that frames Chicago school reform, I argue that the current policies exacerbate existing race and class inequalities and create new ones. The policies promote unequal educational opportunities and experiences and produce stratified identities with significant implications in Chicago’s new, highly stratified work force. As a whole, Chicago’s reforms support the inherent inequalities of global city development, gentrification, and the displacement of working-class and low-income communities, especially communities of color. I argue that education policies are part of a cultural politics of race aimed at the control and regulation of African-American and Latino youth and their communities. The paper concludes with proposals toward the democratic reconstruction of urban education policy.

One of the virtues of International Political Economy (IPE) as a field of analysis is its multiple-perspective nature. One cannot practice IPE without dealing with comparative explanatory strategies. Contemporary IPE, because it is a reamalgamation of disciplines separated out from the previous more holistic tradition, incorporates their contending perspectives in everything that it does. However, in true academic fashion, various practitioners define these perspectives somewhat differently. Following the approach laid out in The Fragmented World by Chris Edwards, this article will distinguish the three schools of thought in IPE by their value theories and then proceed to analyze their contending views on how to deal with environmental issues. Focusing on how each school of thought understands environmental problems will reveal much about the very assumptions that underlie each theory and help explain why there is considerable debate at the policy level on how to address these problems. Introductory Remarks

ABSTRACT This paper outlines an approach for understanding the role of multinational corporations (MNCs) in global governance. We develop a typology of regime types with two dimensions, the goal of the regime, which can be market enabling or regulatory, and the location of authority, which can be national, regional, or international, with public and private elements. MNCs tend to support the creation of market enabling regimes at the international level, and prefer to keep social or environmental regulation under national or private authority. However, these are only generalizations and MNCs develop preferences based on their relative influence in various arenas, the costs of political participation, and competitive considerations. We argue that institutions of global governance represent the outcome of a series of negotiations among corporations, states, and non-state actors. The preferences and power of MNCs vary across issues and sectors, and from one negotiating forum to another, accounting for the uneven and fragmented nature of the resulting system. Our approach differs from the traditional FDI bargaining framework in that it recognizes the multi-party nature of negotiations and multiple sources of power. Moreover, the complexity and dynamic nature of the process results in a somewhat indeterminate process.

Abstract not found