Do CEOs get rewarded for CSR activities in the director labor market?

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to determine if Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) are rewarded or punished in the corporate director labor market for engaging in corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.Design/methodology/approachThe authors empirically examine the relation between CEOs' CSR engagement and their corporate board appointments in retirement using logit, ordinary least squares (OLS) and Poisson regression models.FindingsResults indicate that CSR engagement has significant director labor market consequences for retiring CEOs. Specifically, CSR engagement has a favorable impact on the ability of retired CEOs to obtain board seats and board seats at larger firms generally associated with higher pay, even after controlling for firm performance and other determinants previously documented to explain director selection. The authors also find evidence that CEOs of firms with high CSR engagement build up their firms' CSR scores over time as they approach retirement, which is consistent with the labor market for directors providing incentives to attract CEOs to board service in retirement.Originality/valueBy examining the relationship between a CEO's CSR engagement and their external corporate board directorships, this paper advances the understanding of the determinants of corporate board appointments. Further, while most prior research assesses the value of CSR engagement by looking at the relation between CSR engagement and that firm's performance, this is the first study to our knowledge to look outside the firm to determine if CSR engagement has value to the CEO.

TINJAUAN YURIDIS DUALISME STATUS HUKUM INDIVIDU PENJABAT DIREKTUR KORPORASI

The corporation is one of the backbones of economic growth in Indonesia. The corporation as a legal subject in the form of a legal entity due to its functional nature, will always be represented by an individual who is authorized by law to carry out corporate management functions. Individual Director of a corporation who comes from an internal corporation raises a dualism of legal status that covers Individual of Director, namely the Manpower Law and the Limited Liability Company Law. In addition, Individual of Director must also comply with all regulations related to their business activities (compliance principles). This research is made by looking at the factors that cause the dualism of legal status of Individual Director and the efforts made to provide legal protection for employees who act as corporate director in applying the principle of compliance to ensure the achievement of good corporate governance. Because this research is a research in the field of law, this research uses a normative juridical research method which is descriptive analytical in nature, to analyze the phenomena and what factors cause these problems / phenomena, namely the dualism status of Individual Director law. From this research, it was found that the factors of the dualism of legal status of Individual Director were because the holding company did not give up the employment status of individual employees who were appointed as directors and in contrast, Individual of Director were also reluctant to give up their employment relationship with the holding company. In order to protect the Individual Director from all legal risks that he faces in the implementation of the functions of the board of directors, the principle of compliance must be implemented properly and always act in a professional manner for the advancement of the corporation. Korporasi menjadi salah satu tulang punggung pertumbuhan ekonomi di Indonesia. Korporasi sebagai subjek hukum yang berbentuk badan hukum (rechtspersoon) karena sifat fungsionalnya, akan selalu diwakili oleh seorang individu yang diberikan kewenangan oleh undang-undang untuk melaksanakan fungsi kepengurusan korporasi. Individu Direktur korporasi yang berasal dari karyawan internal korporasi menimbulkan dualisme status hukum yang menaungi Individu Direktur yakni Undang-undang Ketenagakerjaan dan Undang-undang Perseroan Terbatas. Disamping itu Individu Direktur juga harus mentaati semua peraturan yang terkait dengan kegiatan usahanya (compliance principle). Penelitian ini dibuat dengan tujuan mengetahui faktor-faktor yang menjadi penyebab terjadinya dualisme status hukum Individu Direktur korporasi dan upaya yang dilakukan guna memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi karyawan yang menjabat sebagai direktur korporasi dalam menerapkan compliance principle guna memastikan tercapainya tata kelola perusahaan yang baik (good corporate governance). Karena penelitian ini adalah penelitian di bidang hukum, maka penelitian ini mempergunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif yang bersifat deskriptif analitis, untuk menganalisis fenomena yang ditemukan dan faktor apa yang menyebabkan timbulnya masalah / fenomena tersebut yakni adanya dualisme status hukum Individu Direktur. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan faktor-faktor timbulnya dualisme sistem hukum yang menaungi Individu Direktur di disebabkan karena korporasi induk (holding company) tidak melepaskan status ketenagakerjaan individu karyawan yang diangkat menjadi direktur dan sebalinya Individu Direktur juga enggan melepaskan hubungan ketenagakerjaannya dengan holding company. Untuk melindungi Individu Direktur dari segala resiko hukum yang dihadapinya dalam pelaksanaan fungsi direksi, maka compliance principle harus dilaksanakan secara baik dan senantiasa bertindak secara profesional demi kemajuan korporasi.

Mitigating risk of preventable medical errors across a network through event sharing.

234 Background: Medical errors are the 4th leading cause of death in the US. Oncology providers are not immune to preventable medical errors occurring in the treatment of their patients. As a national network of five hospitals that specialize in the treatment of patients fighting complex or advanced-stage cancer, clinicians and quality professionals recognized an opportunity to encourage and formalize the process of sharing safety events, lessons learned, and action plans to mitigate the risk of repeat occurrence. Methods: An Alert Notification process was established consisting of an algorithm depicting two avenues for action when an event occurs. If the event is considered urgent, characterized by immediate high-risk of repeat occurrence or high-risk of severe harm, an alert is called. The hospital nursing officers and quality directors along with the corporate director of pharmacy and vice president of quality/safety convene within 24 hours of the event to: 1) resolve or “halt” the process; 2) escalate if needed; and 3) formulate a communication plan regarding any change in process. If the event does not meet urgent criteria, the hospital conducts a root cause analysis (RCA) or common cause analysis, depending upon the algorithm. A summary of RCAs conducted for events resulting in temporary or permanent severe harm or worse are presented at the network’s monthly safety meeting, with action plans implemented across sites. Results: The notification algorithm was implemented in September 2017. Since its inception, three events have been communicated using the Urgent Alert Notification, including a syringe recall that halted use at all sites until all lot numbers could be checked, and affected syringes pulled. Several events and near misses have been communicated using the non-urgent process, including for example, discussion of a retained foreign object which resulted in review of processes for orienting staff to new products. Conclusions: The process has promoted communication across the five centers as an error prevention strategy. The sharing allows all sites to cross-fertilize resolutions to minimize rework, reduce the risk of repeat events, and build collective knowledge ensuring patient safety is our first commitment.

Juridical Study on the Corporate Criminal Liabilities for Money Laundering Criminal Action with the Defendant Labora Sitorus (A Study on the Decision on Appeal Number: 1081 K/Pid.Sus/2014)

Corporate Crime nowadays is not only committed by people who are in the organization structure but also by people who are not listed in the organization. Based on the Decree no.1081K/PID. SUS/2014, Supreme Court provides an interpretation on the corporate director outside the organization’ structure. Supreme court subjected punishment against LS since he was considered as the corporate controller, although he is not listed on the organizational structure. The problem with LS as the personnel of Corporate manager although he was not listed on the organization structure is by the evidence that all money from the selling and shipping transaction of illegal oil fuel comes in LS’ bank account, and in fact, all the decision making of the corporation is authorized by LS. Whereas, by right, LS did not act as the manager of the corporation. This fact showed that the directing mind and will of that corporation is LS. The management of the corporation such as the boards of the directors are only the “puppets” to commit LS’ criminal act. Keywords: Punishment, Money Laundering, Corporation