Change isn’t always harmonious – in fact, it rarely is. Chapter 4 explores a tension perspective on change, where conflict, contradiction, and power struggles aren’t problems to be solved but engines that drive transformation. This view reframes conflict not as dysfunction but as a sign of deeper dynamics at play. Drawing on dialectics and dialogic theory, the chapter shows how competing interests and political tensions shape the course of change through friction, negotiation, and narrative. Rather than seeking neat resolutions, it invites readers to embrace tension, plurality, and the messy – but often generative – nature of organisational life. At its core, this perspective reminds us that change is as much about who holds power as it is about where an organisation is going.

The introduction explains why the boundary between business decisions and social decisions has eroded. Corporate operations now shape speech, safety, health, and democratic life as a direct result of scale, efficiency, and automation.

The introduction explains why familiar responses fail. Shareholder primacy breaks down when investors disagree about corporate purpose. Stakeholder approaches identify affected groups but offer no way to resolve conflict. Calls for neutrality ignore the reality that operational choices already function as social policy.

The introduction presents the book's core claim. Corporations have built governance systems to manage social conflict because no other institution can respond quickly enough. These systems are not symbolic commitments. They are operational structures that allow firms to set standards, justify decisions, and revise practices over time.

It introduces corporate ordering and previews the tripartite framework that organizes the book. It explains the role of the case studies and situates the project within debates about corporate power, regulation, and democratic legitimacy.

Corporate executives increasingly find that ordinary operational choices, from algorithm design to supply chain management to pricing, generate intense social and political controversy. This chapter argues that such episodes are not anomalies caused by polarized politics or activist overreach, but inevitable consequences of how modern corporations operate. Three interconnected forces drive this transformation. First, the drive for efficiency at scale leads corporations to impose uniform standards and comprehensive monitoring across vast operations, turning routine business decisions into de facto social policy. Second, forced transparency in the digital age means companies now possess detailed data about their social consequences, while stakeholders wield powerful tools to monitor corporate behavior and mobilize responses. Third, profit maximization no longer yields uniform investor preferences, as shareholders bring heterogeneous values and irreconcilable visions of how profitability should be achieved. These forces interact to make corporate social impact unavoidable, yet corporate law, shaped by Delaware precedent and federal securities regulation, neither accounts for the full extent of that impact nor builds decision-making processes capable of accommodating it. The chapter establishes a diagnostic framework for understanding why conventional governance approaches fail and what new approaches companies actually need.

This chapter describes the main stakeholders of financial institutions.

These conclusions do not intend to summarize and even less to close the debate but instead to revert to the main issues addressed during the conference and maybe identify further issues for research. All contributors agree that not only a discussion on democracy and representation in and by international organisations is not purely speculative or theoretical, but that it seems necessary today. Despite this, contributors are not all in agreement on the need to use the concept of representation when discussing democratization of international organizations. Some question the link between democracy and representation, or whether using representative systems is even feasible in international organizations. This, in turn, leads to the various definitions of the concept of representation in political science and in law. A multiple international representation system (MIRS) as proposed by Besson and Marti is based on a strict concept of democratic representation and contrasts with other more flexible concepts such as ‘descriptive’ or ‘mimetic’ representation. In the end, the chapters address the merits of various systems, including in existing processes of global governance, for further democratizing international organisations.

At the heart of effective inclusive education lies a shared understanding among all stakeholders. When early childhood communities develop collective commitment to inclusive philosophies, they establish the essential groundwork for sustainable change. This shared vision recognises that inclusion extends beyond physical placement to encompass full participation, valued contribution and authentic belonging. The It takes a village approach acknowledges that inclusion cannot be the responsibility of individual educators working in isolation; rather, it requires coordinated effort across the entire early childhood community. When staff, families and community co-design inclusive principles together, they develop ownership and commitment that withstands the inevitable challenges of implementation.

Corporate governance involves the rules and practices that direct and control the decision-making of a corporation. The allocation of discretionary decision rights to individuals in organisations directly connects corporate governance with the principles of contributive justice. In this chapter, we start from Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice to provide a perspective on organisational justice and explore the process towards achieving contributive justice as far as determined by the patterns of corporate governance of the organisation. Specifically, we argue that just corporate decision-making needs to build on the contribution of stakeholders to the corporation. This argument is captured by a conceptualisation of justice in terms of contributive justice (see Chapter 3). The emphasis on contributive justice within corporate governance is further developed in a generalised stewardship theory as a model of governance that orients stakeholders towards advancing the collective benefit. The generalised stewardship approach to corporate governance particularly emphasises the contributive aspect of organisational participation, emphasising not only transparency and ex post accountability on the distribution of resources and outcomes but also ‘process accountability’, equity, and integrity.

This chapter explores the motivations behind Tencent’s creation of social value, examines the various forms and models it has developed, and analyses the key factors that enable its successful implementation. The creation of social value is deeply influenced by Tencent’s values of ‘tech for good’. This core value is emphasised at a strategic level within Tencent’s various departments. Tencent has established a model for creating social value that involves the interactions between technological, product, and business model innovation. Based on these interactions, various business departments are involved in social value creation, which has been integrated into their daily business operations. Tencent has leveraged its platform capabilities to cultivate ecosystems for social value co-creation, which facilitates connections between and collaborations among diverse external stakeholders. In doing so, Tencent has created multifaceted social value across diverse scenarios, such as rural revitalisation, disaster response and relief, and carbon neutrality.

Advocacy for Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) is a critical component of supporting the recovery of survivors of critical illness. Despite its importance, a shared understanding of PICS advocacy remains underrepresented in medical literature. This chapter defines PICS advocacy as an ethical commitment to patient- and caregiver-centered care, encompassing three key dimensions: supporting individuals living with PICS, promoting awareness and prevention within medical and lay communities, and advancing the science surrounding this condition. Current advocacy efforts occur across various levels, including local communities, national organizations, and global collaborations. Central to these efforts is awareness, facilitated by a growing array of educational resources such as books, podcasts, and websites. However, PICS advocacy can further benefit from large-scale public awareness campaigns modeled after successful initiatives by organizations like the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society. These efforts could amplify public understanding and drive systemic change. Individuals are encouraged to take an active role in PICS advocacy, and this chapter offers practical strategies for engagement. By empowering individuals to champion PICS awareness and support, the healthcare community can foster a more inclusive approach to addressing this condition. Advocacy for PICS is not just a responsibility–it is an opportunity to transform care and improve outcomes for survivors and their families.

This chapter discusses corpus applications to language teaching and learning, focusing specifically on the use of corpora and corpus linguistics research for informing coursebook and assessment development. A number of studies undertaken by the authors are discussed with a view to highlighting both the affordances of corpus linguistics for supporting such indirect applications to language education, as well as the barriers of using corpus linguistics research to inform stakeholder practices. Focusing on the use of corpora by materials writers, the use of learner corpus research and spoken corpus research for assessment refinement and design, and the use of corpus research for materials design, this chapter reflects on engagement with stakeholders in this domain over the last fifteen years. Drawing together the lessons learned from these studies, this chapter offers a critical reflection on the relative impact achieved in each study, while also proposing guidelines for those interested in working with stakeholders to co-design research and produce relevant and appliable research.

Chapter 2 defines the concept of race-conscious image construction, which occurs through disclosures, presents empirical evidence of it in action, and charts how corporations used race-conscious images to bolster their reputation between 2020 and 2024. It also demonstrates how the language and prevalence of disclosures about race changed during that time. The chapter discusses Chevron Corporation (Chevron) as representative case studies that illustrate the image construction process undertaken by thousands of companies. It also explores the role of risk management in corporations’ use of race-conscious disclosures, demonstrating that image construction is often employed as a shield from legal and reputational scrutiny.

Chapter 6 argues that a functioning federal government should assume an information enforcing role to regulate race-conscious disclosures and retraction and facilitate regulation by shareholders and stakeholders including, employees, and consumers, who can use the information provided by the federal government to establish accountability structures. The chapter makes normative suggestions for what it calls a “multi-institutional approach” to regulating business.