This chapter surveys the history of the belief that capitalist enterprises have a wider responsibility to, and for, society and the natural environment beyond exclusively making profits for their owners. It shows that by the early twentieth century there were well-developed traditions of business responsibility in major industrial nations, and the creation of philanthropic foundations by business leaders had begun. Subsequently the growth of big business and the shock of the Great Depression contributed to further discussion on the matter. In Asia, and to some extent in Latin America, radical concepts of business responsibility developed, often motivated by religious beliefs and secular philosophies such as Confucianism. There were always many interpretations of responsibility of business leaders, and the overall concept never mainstreamed. Recent decades have seen a wide diffusion of the rhetoric about corporate social responsibility, but it is unclear how this has truly impacted corporate strategies.
Ingmar van Meerkerk and Jurian Edelenbos
This chapter sets out the aims and plan of the book. It discusses the need for examining boundary spanners and their behavior. Moreover, it stresses the need to realize a more comprehensive understanding of boundary spanning behavior, its antecedents and impact. In this respect it argues for a more interdisciplinary approach and for more systematic knowledge accumulation. Furthermore, it discusses the added value of the book compared to other books on boundary spanning. Next to a readers guide and overview of the various chapters, it provides a definition of boundary spanners and it presents the approach taken in this book of which a systematic literature review on boundary spanners is pivotal.
This chapter examines the main drivers of regional infrastructure systems. The chapter initially defines the form and key characteristics of infrastructure and then, taking a realist perspective, argues that these structures are a key feature of state territorial strategies. Such debates inform the approach to regionalism addressed within the book, arguing that regional infrastructures are symptomatic of tensions within the global system to which national infrastructure systems have to adapt. The chapter concludes with a brief examination of the main forms of regional infrastructure identified within this book.
Justin Alger and Peter Dauvergne
Following the rapid growth in scholarship in global environmental politics since the 1990s, it is time for a reinvigorated research agenda in the field. This chapter outlines the current state of global environmental politics research through the lenses of global political economy, international institutions and nonstate governance, ecological crisis, climate politics, and scholar activism and engaged research. By identifying gaps and emerging issues, it distills a research agenda for current and future scholars of global environmental politics. There is, in particular, a growing need for research that: (a) more closely connects social phenomena to global environmental impacts and change; and (b) asks more innovative and expansive questions rather than filling niches on issues with already extensive scholarship. As it is a relatively new field that seeks to address an escalating global environmental crisis, there is still plenty of room for emerging scholars of global environmental politics to ask big questions.
This chapter engages with the international legal frameworks with respect to intangible cultural heritage, focusing particularly on one universal instrument (the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, under the auspices of UNESCO), and one regional instrument applicable in Europe (the 2005 Faro Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, under the auspices of the Council of Europe). In examining the two instruments, the chapter queries their interrelationships, and the fit of contemporary culture within these regimes. It shows that, while the legal instruments do not seem able to accommodate contemporary culture as heritage (under these treaties' definitions), contemporary culture as a safeguarding practice can in fact be a part of these legal regimes.