CR3+ Conference: CSR and Expanding Horizons

Call for Papers and Paper Submission Guidelines

Call for Papers

CSR: New Horizons Conference invites abstracts of papers for the CR3+ Conference to be held in Melbourne, March 26th-28th 2014 .

We are especially interested in contributions from a variety of disciplines such as management, industrial relations, accounting, sociology, ethics, marketing, sport and tourism, and finance and economics. Abstracts can be based on a range of approaches including empirical, methodological, conceptual and applied.

Relevant CSR streams include: 

  • Relational Ethics in Partnering with Indigenous Peoples
  • Financialisation and CSR
  • CSR as used by non-corporate actors: Strategic over-identification, détournement and opposition
  • Education
  • Gender Equality and CSR
  • Business & Human Rights
  • Business, Faith & Spirituality
  • General


Abstracts due: 10 December 2013
Notification of Acceptance: 15 December 2013
Full papers due: 31 January 2014

Abstract specifications

  •  Your abstract should be ordered under the following headings,
  1.  Introduction/rationale for study 
  2.  Research aim
  3.  Outline of methodology 
  4.  Findings, conclusions and 
  5.  Implications for practice and/or theory
  6.  Limitations
  • Underline the author(s) making the presentation. This author will be considered the key person for all contact about the abstract. Include all co-authors names, affiliations and addresses for general correspondence (including email address) above the abstract text and below the title.

Font: Calibri or Arial 11 pt 
Title: Bold Caps, left alignment 
Authors: Italics, centred, presenter underlined if more than one author.
Text body: Regular, single-spaced,
Spacing: One line space between title and author details, and between author details and body of text 
Length: maximum 1,000 words, inclusive of title and author details 
Margins: 2.54cm margins all round 
Stream: In the top left-hand corner identify the preferred stream for the paper 
Keywords: List up to 5 keywords or terms 

Review process

Submissions will be subjected to a blind review process.

Submission of an abstract indicates the intent of the presenter(s) to attend the conference.

No more than 2 first authored presentations will be accepted from the same person, including all co-authorships. Conference abstracts are accepted on the basis that they represent original work and should not have previously been published.

Full papers of between 3000 and 5000 words will be blind reviewed. 

The submission of full papers is not mandatory as papers are accepted based on the Abstract. 

Streams and paper upload

Information about each stream and submission details.

Stream 1: Relational ethics in partnering with Indigenous Peoples

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Maria Humphries 
Waikato Management School, University of Waikato. Hamilton, New Zealand.

Frank Scrimgeour
Waikato Management School, University of Waikato. Hamilton, New Zealand. 

Sarah Tiakiwai
Academic Director, Waikato-Tainui College for Research and Development 

Betsan Martin
Director, Response Trust, Wellington, New Zealand.

Amy Verbos
College of Business Administration, Central Michigan University, USA.

The Call to Conference for CSR: New Horizons draws attention to the possibilities and the risks associated with the partnering of corporations and stakeholder groups who wish to work together for beneficial social, ecological, and economic outcomes.  More attention is now being paid to the voices that call for greater social and environmental responsibility once largely ignored by corporations. Service work and volunteering by staff in community or environmental organisations have been given greater corporate sanction and support. Alliances between NGOs and corporations are evident in the marketing of ever more products and services. Many companies, from international airlines to local bakeries prominently display the charity or advocacy group with which they are happy to be associated. Greenpeace and Amnesty International for example can be seen at the tables of global level corporate negotiations. Initiatives such as the United Nations Global Compact and the associated Principles for Responsible Management Education, Responsible Investment, and the like are vehicles for the encouragement and enhancement of such greater corporate responsibility. 

Responsibility is proposed as a theme through which to examine accountability and dimensions of relationality. Papers in this stream may examine how responsibility frameworks are set in collaborative arrangements and what standards or measures of accountability are agreed to. If concepts of social and ecological well-being are used, what specific outcomes are identified and how are these measured? What systems are in place for partner accountability? 

Engagement with NGO’s signifies greater insitutional integration between corporate and government sectors.  In some places indigenous peoples are asserting the desire to be at the tables of decision-making – sometimes as community sector organizations with a specific tribal agenda, more often now as a strategic business partner in the access and management of highly desirable access to land, water, minerals, and knowledge framed as Intellectual Property.
What characterises these relationships in part is the specialist knowledge, networks and community legitimacy these voices carry into the corporate board room. The relationships are often referred to as partnerships – perhaps an indication of an intention of collaboration rather than one of charitable corporate philanthropy or sponsorship and the imbalance of power and dependency assumed in the latter.

The corporate sector’s partnerships with organisations in the NGO sectors and with Indigenous communities are fruitful fields for examination of spheres of influence and trajectories of transformation.  The call to conference invites a critical examination of these relationships for their potential for collaboration for agreed outcomes, their material effects for various stakeholders, and their risk of being harnessed to the interests of the corporate power brokers, and system maintaining outcomes.  We call for papers that explore relationships deemed to be authentic partnerships of mutual benefit, papers that analyse relationships for beneficial; compromised and negative outcomes; papers that explore the ways that may enhance or diminish the interests of various stakeholders by virtue of the relationships committed to.

Contextualising References

  • Ausubel, K. (2008). Preface: Remembering Original Instructions. In M. K. Nelson (Ed.), Original lInstructions: Indigenous teachings for a sustainable future. Bear & Company, Rochester, VT.
  • Banerjee, S. B. (2011). Embedding sustainability across the organization: A critical perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(4), 719-731.
  • Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Clear Light Publishers, Sante Fe, NM.
  • Cameron, K. S. (2008). Paradox in positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 7-24.
  • Cordova, V. F. (2007). Against the singularity of the human species. In K. D. Moore, K. Peters, T. Jojola & A. Lacy (Eds.), How it is: The Native American philosophy of V. F. Cordova (pp. 159-165). University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ.
  • Fitzgibbons, D. E., and Humphries, M. (2011). Enhancing the circle of life: Management education and Indigenous knowledge. Journal of Management Education, 35(1), 3-7.
  • Hackman, J. R. (2009). The perils of positivity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(2), 309-319.
  • Haugh, H. M., and Talwar, A. (2010). How do corporations embed sustainability across the organization? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 384-396.
  • Hoskins, T. K., Martin, B., and Humphries, M. T. (2011). PRME as an Ethic of Relationality. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 16(2), 22-27.
  • LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. South End Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Marcus, J., Kurucz, E. C., and Colbert, B. A. (2010). Conceptions of the business-society-nature interface: Implications for management scholarship. Business & Society, 49(3), 402-438.
  • Maxton, G. (2011). The end of progress: How modern economics has failed us. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
  • Moore, K. D., Peters, K., Jojola, T., and Lacy, A. (Eds.). (2007). How it is: The Native American philosophy of V. F. Cordova. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
  • Nelson, M. K. (Ed.). (2008). Original instructions: Indigenous teachings for a sustainable future. Rochester, VT: Bear & Company.
  • Spiller, C., Pio, E., Erakovic, L., and Henare, M. (2011). Wise up: Creating organizational wisdom through an Ethic of Kaitiakitanga. Journal of Business Ethics, 104(2), 223-235
  • Verbos, A. K., Kennedy, D. M., and Gladstone, J. S. (2011). “Coyote was walking. . .”: Management education in Indian time. Journal of Management Education, 35(1), 51-65.
  • Williams, L., Roberts, R., and McIntosh, A. (2012). Radical Human Ecology: Intercultural and Indigenous Approaches. Ashgate, Surrey.


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Maria Humphries: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Stream 2: Financialisation and CSR

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Suzanne Young
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia.
Griffith Business School, Griffith University. Brisbane, Australia.

David Peetz

In many economies, institutional investors such as pension funds hold the largest share of stocks, and as such are the dominant shareholder class.  They are increasingly using their power to bring about a change of corporate behaviours. Institutional investors are also seeking additional information from public companies concerning their environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices in order to make their investment decisions.  In relation to corporate risk arising from poor ESG practices ratings agencies are also influencing corporate and pension funds decisions.

Poor social, ethical and environmental corporate practices can represent an excessive fiduciary risk for institutional investors as companies attract law suits, negative media attention, loss of reputation and financial impacts from fines and taxes” (Solomon 2009 in Young 2009, p. 136). Young (2013 forthcoming) argues that the United Nations Principles of Responsible Investment (UNPRI) has been a key driver for institutional investors and in particular superannuation, or pension funds to more broadly incorporate ESG into investment decisions. In Australia over half all funds under management are now signed to the United Nations backed Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). The 2010 RIAA report (2010) shows there has been a rise in Australian signatories up 29 per cent from 2009 with 112 Australian signatories in 2010 representing 14 per cent of the globally signatory base. The asset manager segment of local UNPRI signatories has assets under management of US $412 billion. This means that approximately half of the funds under management of Australian asset managers fall under UNPRI commitments to ESG integration. In 2010 responsible investment assets were estimated to be $74.8 billion, an increase of 25 per cent from $59.9 billion in 2009. 

Moreover due to institutional pressures such as the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX 2007) Corporate Governance Guidelines ESG is becoming mainstream and an executive-level issue that now means that the external risk environment and its impact on the business, supply chain and customers is continually being monitored.

In particular Cotter and Najah (2012) in an international study of carbon disclosures found a highly significant relationship between institutional investor influence and climate change disclosure demonstrating the potential for this powerful and legitimate stakeholder group to influence corporate disclosures.

Peetz and Murray (2013 forthcoming) argue that the climate crisis must be seen in the context of conflicting capitalist visions: between, on the one hand, those focusing on short-term profit, increasingly associated with the ‘financialisation’ of modern economies, and, on the other hand, those focusing on long-term considerations, accounting for sustainability.  Financialisation is a ‘pattern of accumulation in which profit making occurs increasingly through financial channels rather than through trade and commodity production’ (Kripzpner 2004:14, also 2005).They go on to argue that the experience from 2008 of the global financial crisis (known as the ‘great recession’ in the US) showed, on one hand, the fragility of the global economic system and financial structures underpinning it and, on the other, the resilience of existing structures of power and difficulties in achieving a lasting transformation to global sustainability.  With the dominance of neoliberal policy and ideology from the 1980s, finance capital has become increasingly powerful in global economic affairs: a small number of banks, private fund managers and state sovereign funds control a substantial proportion of shares in the world’s largest 300 corporations; individuals or families control only a small portion; and ownership has become more concentrated in the hands of particular financial organisations, including since the financial crisis (Epstein 2012; Krippner, 2005; Peetz & Murray 2012). 

Finance capital, then, appears critical to achieving transition to a sustainable economy, especially given the limited success of nation states in dealing with climate change.  Yet there is strong evidence that, amongst individuals, climate change denial is most closely associated with adherence to free market ideology (Lewandowsky et al, 2012), and finance capital, is the biggest beneficiary of free-market ideology as well as a major contributor to its propagation through think tanks (Cocket 1994).  

This stream will explore how different actors in the finance sector influence corporate behaviours especially those related to climate change, carbon disclosure, labour and human rights and transparency.

Contextualising References

  • ASX 2007.  Corporate Governance Council ASX Corporate Governance Principles and Recommendations, 2nd Edition.
  • Cockett, R. 1994. Thinking the Unthinkable Think-tanks and the Economic Counter-revolution, 1931-83, Harper Collins, London.
  • Cotter, J & Najah, M. 2012. Institutional investor influence on global climate change disclosure practices. Australian Journal of Management, 37 (2), 169-187.
  • Epstein, Gerald A. Introduction to Financialization and the World Economy. [online]  [Accessed 10 August, 2012].
  • Krippner, G.  (2005) The financialization of the American economy. Socio-Economic Review 3(2):173-208.
  • Lewandowsky, S., Oberauer, K. & Gignac, G. . (2012). Motivated Rejection of Science: NASA faked the moon landing—Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. Psychological Science (in Press). 
  • Peetz, D & Murray, G. (2012) ‘The financialisation of global corporate ownership’, in J Scott & G Murray (eds), Financial Elites And Transnational Business: Who Rules the World?, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
  • Peetz, D. & Murray, G. 2013 (forthcoming) Financialisation of corporate ownership and implications for the potential for climate action in Young, S. and Gates, S., (Eds.) 2013, (forthcoming), Institutional Investors and Corporate Responses: Actors, Power and Responses, Emerald.
  • Solomon, J. 2009, Corporate Governance and Accountability, 3rd edn., Wiley Responsible Investment Academy of Australia (RIAA) 2010 Responsible Investment 2010 - the real facts about the growth and the size of RI in Australia and New Zealand, November
  • Young, S. (Ed.) 2009. Contemporary Issues in International Corporate Governance, Tilde University Press, Melbourne. 
  • Young, S. 2013 (forthcoming) Responsible Investment, ESG and Institutional Investors in Australia in Young, S. and Gates, S., (Eds.) 2013, (forthcoming), Institutional Investors and Corporate Responses: Actors, Power and Responses, Emerald.


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Suzanne Young: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Stream 3: CSR as used by non-corporate actors: Strategic over-identification, détournement and opposition

Stream Organisers and Reviewers 

Martin Fougère and Nikodemus Solitander
Reviewers from the CREME research group at Hanken and the CR-politics network in Helsinki

CSR has historically been developed as a corporate response to the challenges of sustainable development, with a clear preference (articulated by business interest groups such as the International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development) for voluntary action from corporations going 'beyond minimum legal requirements'. Even though this dominant articulation of CSR has been endorsed by other actors than business actors (not least the European Commission, in its influential 2001 definition), it can be seen as largely serving the interests of corporations. As CSR is increasingly seen as a form of governance that transcends the societal spheres (as hinted in the conference theme), non-corporate actors increasingly refer to CSR not only in ways that align with corporate 'voluntary' definitions, but also in ways that qualify CSR further and sometimes even contradict hitherto dominants conceptions. Thus, CSR has recently been redefined by several influential institutions as being essentially about the responsibility of organizations for their impacts on society (ISO 2010; European Commission 2011). Far from bringing some closure around the meaning of CSR, these new definitions seem to contribute to opening up the CSR field even more; in this sense CSR may never have been so 'essentially contested' (e.g. Matten and Moon 2008) as today. This means that different non-corporate actors, ranging from powerful governments like India and its ‘mandatory CSR guidelines’ to small watchdog NGOs leveraging corporate documents (such as codes of conduct or CSR reports) in order to enhance social compliance, increasingly ‘use’ CSR in ways conducive to serving their own purposes – be it inclusive development, social justice, environmental protection, or, in the case of business academics, ‘responsible management education’. This use of CSR may be a matter of, among other possibilities: (1) over-identifying with the concept by deliberately taking its implications seriously; (2) ‘hijacking’ or ‘détournement’ of CSR according to an own definition of the concept, which requires action from corporations or attracts increasing attention from stakeholders (see Fleming and Jones 2013 relating to these first two points); or (3) targeting CSR itself as that which needs to be opposed in order for the negative externalities of corporate action to be tackled better.

In this stream, we invite studies of emergent uses of CSR by non-corporate actors, for example with a focus on how the use of CSR is leveraged to serve the objectives of these actors. These non-corporate actors may include (but not be limited to): governments; intergovernmental organizations; business interest groups; think tanks; trade unions; NGOs; social movements; universities/business schools; and/or individual scholars. We also invite ‘engaged academics’ to advocate alternative understandings of what CSR – or closely related concepts such as ‘social responsibility’, (corporate or organizational) ‘sustainability’, ‘responsible management education’, etc. – should mean.

Contextualising References 

  • European Commission (2011) ‘A renewed EU strategy 2011-14 for Corporate Social Responsibility’. Brussels: COM (2011) 681 final.
  • Fleming, P. and Jones, M. T. (2013) The End of Corporate Social Responsibility: Crisis & Critique. London: Sage.
  • ISO (2010) ‘Guidance on Social Responsibility’ (formerly at, now offline).
  • Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008) ‘“Implicit” and “Explicit” CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility’. Academy of Management Review 33(2), 404-424.

Importance of this stream to the progression of the field of CSR.

Whether we academics develop our own theorizing on CSR or not, the field of CSR is in permanent evolution and at the moment it is perhaps more open than ever, despite efforts by corporations to keep CSR safely as a ‘voluntary’ endeavor, on their own terms. It is particularly important to study the strategies of other, non-corporate (but not necessarily adversarial to corporations) actors who seek to use CSR in a way that serves their interests in terms of social and environmental governance, and sometimes of more narrow objectives.


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Martin Fougère: with the stream number and name in the subject line. 

Stream 4: Education

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Suzanne Young
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University.  Melbourne, Australia.

Lynne Leveson
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University.  Melbourne, Australia.

Recent corporate collapses, environmental disasters and ethical crises highlight the importance of developing management skills that create awareness of sustainability and responsible management practices (Young & Nagpal, 2013; Leveson & Joiner, [forthcoming]; Sibbel, 2009; UNPRME Homepage, 2010). The education sector is seen to play a pivotal role in this  even though the  focus of business schools has traditionally been on ‘Management Practices’ in areas including operations, finance, marketing, human resources and strategy (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2007).   Furthermore, business education (particularly at the undergraduate level) has been criticised as being overly overly procedural and organization-centric and lacking a focus on social responsibility issues (Leveson & Joiner,[forthcoming]; Kolodinsky et al., 2010; Owen, 2007). Experts in the field now believe that there should be a reduced focus on agency and economics in order to integrate more ‘responsible’ models, as managers need to be able to address wider problems of equity, sustainability, ethics, globalization and development (Stephens et al., 2008). Moreover pedagogical approaches (particularly teaching and curriculum design) it is argued, needs to change so as to incorporate new modes of values-based teaching (Fougere, Solitander & Young, 2013). As a result we are increasingly finding courses, literature and commentary emerging out of the demands of a rapidly changing business world and the sustainable business movement (Brower, 2011; Starik et al., 2011; Pless et al., 2011; Stead & Stead, 2010; Jim Wu et al., 2010).

The United Nations Principles for Management Education (PRME) were officially inaugurated in July 2007, as part of the United Nations Global Compact, as “an urgent call to modify business education in light of changing ideas about corporate citizenship, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability” (Alcaraz & Thiruvattal, 2010: 542).

There are currently over 400 participating academic institutions that are signatories to the principles. Young & Nagpal, (2013) argue the key benefits are to tap into a global network of management education exemplars, being at the forefront of the growing impetus for business to be more sustainable, and partnering with other member institutions to co-operate in developing research, curriculum and extra-curricular offerings.

The purpose of this stream to examine the experience of embedding the six PRME principles into education pedagogy. It will do so in two parts:

  1. Panel discussion with invited speakers
  2. Presented papers 


Speakers: Martin Fougere, Andre Sobczak, Maria Humphries
Stream: Using PRME to enrich pedagogy: the ‘How’ and the ‘What’
Time: 60-90 mins

Proposed Topics

1. Implementing PRME in the curriculuma. 

a. What would it look like?

b. How would it be done? [eg, all principles together or in stages; how to translate principles as expressed in the curriculum into teaching and learning practice]

c. What is the ‘Hidden Curriculum’ and how do we also align this with the PRME framework?

2. Articulating the link between PRME and CSR and sustainability in curricula design and teaching 

3. Criteria and ways of evaluating the effectiveness of teaching based on PRME curricula

4. Ways of building support – individual, Course, Departmental, Faculty, Institutional

Contextualizing References

  • Alcaraz, J. M. & Thiruvattal, E. (2010). An Interview with Manuel Escudero, The United Nations’ Principles for Responsible Management Education: A Global Call for Sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 542–550.
  • Brower, H. (2011). Sustainabale Devlopment Through Service Learning: A Pedagogical Framework and Case Example in a Third World Context, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(1), 58-76.
  • Fougere, M., Solitander, N. and Young, S. (2013 in press) ‘Exploring and exposing values in management education: Problematizing final vocabularies in order to enhance moral imagination’, Journal of Business Ethics, DOI 10.1007/s10551-013-1655-9
  • Kolodinsky, R.W., Madden, T.M., Zisk, D.S. and Henkel, E.T. (2010). Attitudes About Corporate Social Responsibility: Business Student Predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 167-81.
  • Leveson, L. & Joiner, T. (forthcoming) Exploring Corporate Social Responsibility Values of Millennial Job Seeking Students. Education + Training.
  • Jim Wu, Y. C., Huang S., Kuo, L., & Wu, W-H. (2010). Management Education for Sustainability: A Web-Based Content Analysis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 520–531.
  • Owen, D. (2007).CSR after Enron: A Role for the academic accounting profession?. European Accounting Review, 14(2), 395-404.
  • Pless, N. M., Maak, T. & Stahl, G. K. (2011). Developing Responsible Global Leaders Through International Service-Learning Programs: The Ulysses Experience. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 237-260.
  • Sibbel, A. (2009). Pathways towards Sustainability through Higher Education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 10(1), 68-82.
  • UNPRME (2010) The United Nations Principles for Management Education.  Available: [18 November 2010]
  • Stubbs, W. & Cocklin, C. (2007). Teaching Sustainability to Business Students: Shifting Mindsets. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 206-221.
  • Stephens, J.C., Hernandez, M.E., Roman, M., Graham, A.C. & Scholz, R.W. (2008). Higher education as a change agent for sustainability in different cultures and contexts. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 9(3), 317-338.
  • Starik, M., Rands, G., Marcus, A.  & Clarke, T. (2010). From the Guest Editors: In Search of Sustainability in Management Education, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 377-383.
  • Stead J. G. & Stead W. E. (2010). Sustainability Comes to Management Education and Research: A Story of Coevolution. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(3), 488-497.
  • Young, S. and Nagpal, S. (2013). Meeting the Growing Demand for Sustainability-Focused Management Education: A Case Study of a PRME Academic Institution. Higher Education Research & Development, Issue 32.3, May 2013, DOI:10.1080/07294360.2012.695339


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Suzanne Young: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Stream 5: Gender equality and CSR

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Kate Grosser
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia

Rosaria Burchielli
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia

The recent very successful Symposium on Gender and Responsible Business at the International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Nottingham University Business School (June 2013), helped to place gender equality at the centre of CSR research as a relatively new and cutting edge issue with far-reaching implications. Not only is gender equality in the workplace recognized as a key CSR issue, but this agenda extends also to the gender impacts of corporations in the marketplace, through global supply chains and value chains for example, and through consumer impacts. It also involves attention to the gender equality impacts of corporations in the communities where they operate, in the mining sector for example where this issue been addressed through some leading work by Australian companies.  Recently agreed UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights potentially offer a further new approach to gender equality in the private sector that is grounded more with reference to internationally agreed human rights than merely the business case approach. Finally, feminist perspectives on CSR as a political process of governance are just beginning to emerge.

Not only is gender equality an important issue in itself, but core CSR issues cannot be tackled effectively without increased attention to gender, as evidenced by the feminisation of poverty (Habermas, 1998); the importance of gender analysis in addressing environmental degradation (Marshall, 2007); and long-standing recognition of gender equality as a key to development (Millennium Development Goals). This theme will bring together interdisciplinary work on gender and CSR with the aim of stimulating new research and debate. Key issues to address include, but are not limited to:

  • Gender and CSR in the workplace, marketplace, community and ecological environment
  • How are leading companies addressing gender equality and integrating consideration of gender issues in their value chains?
  • What are the key gender issues in stakeholder relations?
  • What does feminist scholarship tell us about marginalized voices in CSR, and their importance for addressing core CSR issues effectively, in particular in new governance processes?
  • Gender and CSR governance – government, business and civil regulation 
  • Gender, business and human rights 
  • Gender and social accounting/sustainability reporting 
  • Gender, business and sustainability/sustainable development 

Contextualising References

  • Habermas, J. (1998). The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 
  • Marshall, J. (2007). The gendering of leadership in corporate social responsibility. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20 (2), 165-181.


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Kate Grosser: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Stream 6: Business & Human Rights

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Ken McPhail
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia 

Azizul Izlam
Queensland University of Technology. Brisbane, Australia

Conventional business practice is about rights. Financial reporting and the political economic context within which it is practiced are predicated upon a particular set of rights based relationships.  Firstly, corporate accountability is premised on the property rights of shareholders and secondly, this specific relationship is assumed to be mediated by the overriding responsibility of nation states for the rights of it’s citizens.

While CSR research has challenged the preferential treatment given to shareholders rights, though not always employing the language of rights, the past few years has seen a significant shift in the political economy of rights that we argue has significant implications both for the way we think about the function of corporations in society and the potential contribution that CSR could make towards more just forms of economic activity. 

In 2011, The UN Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (GP’s), an event which is regarded as one of the most significant events in the recent history of corporate governance.  This is because the GP’s implicitly challenge both the pre-eminence of corporate responsibility for shareholders property rights and the absolute responsibility of States for the rights of it’s citizens.  Beyond the implications for the assumptions that underpin established notions of corporate responsibility, the GP’s outline the need for the development of new management and accounting systems to protect rights and, most controversially, provide for non-judicial access to remedy where rights are violated. 

Despite the significance of these developments there is comparatively little research within the management and accounting literatures.  Papers appropriate for this themed stream could explore:

  • The implications of the business and human rights agenda for CSR 
  • Critique of the Guiding Principles and it’s implementation
  • Qualitative studies of the implementation of business and human rights within corporations
  • Qualitative studies of the implementation of the guiding principles within the public sector.
  • Critical reflections on the role of corporations in the governance of nation states. 
  • Corporate forms of access to remedy for human rights violations
  • Studies of the development of human rights measurements and performance indicators
  • Interaction between Business and Human Rights  reporting and existing initiatives (such as integrated reporting and the GRI)
  • Risk and human rights
  • Incorporating business and human rights in to the business school curriculum.


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Ken Mcphail: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Papers accepted for this stream will be considered for publication in a special issue of the journal Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal on accounting and human rights; or a special issue or the Journal of Business Ethics Education on Teaching Business & Human Rights.

Stream 7: Business, Faith & Spirituality

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Ken McPhail
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia

Despite the fact that we were all supposed to be secular atheists by now, religion, faith and spirituality are making a return to serious academic debate. Derrida; Levinas; Eagleton and Zizek, for example, have all seriously engaged with religious traditions in an attempt to find there, ”valuable insights into human emancipation, in an era where the political left stands in dire need of good ideas.” (Eagleton, 2010, p. xi).”  

However it is not only within continental philosophy that religion is making a comeback.  Sociologist Rodney Stark and historian Mark Knoll, for example consider the role of faith-based systems in the historical development and contemporary operation of economic systems. More specifically however, this religious turn has made its way into the accounting and management literature. For example, Accounting Auditing and Accountability Journal published a special issue and a themed section on Accounting and Theology in 2004 and 2005 while in 2012 Simon Critchly and others guest edited a special issue of Organization titled, Theology, Work and Organization.  In this special issue they publish a paper calling for a theology of organization. 

Yet despite these examples, the exploration of business and organization from a theological perspective is still relatively marginal within the accounting and management literature.  This conference stream will explore Corporate Social Responsibility from a theological perspective. 

Papers appropriate for this themed stream could explore:

  • CSR and religious organisations
  • Theologies of CSR
  • Faith, leadership and CSR.
  • Critical reflections on the role of faith based organisations in the development of CSR
  • HRM and faith
  • Work, Faith and Contradiction.
  • Faith and business education on CSR. 
  • CSR and Networks of Faith
  • CSR as religion


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Ken Mcphail: with the stream number and name in the subject line.

Stream 8: General

Stream Organisers and Reviewers

Suzanne Young
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia

Rosaria Burchielli
La Trobe Business School, La Trobe University. Melbourne, Australia


Authors are encouraged to submit abstracts to the stream organizers via email to Suzanne Young: with the stream number and name in the subject line.