Mark S. Schwartz
York University
50 Papers
121 Citations
Mark S. Schwartz is an academic researcher from York University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Business ethics & Corporate social responsibility. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 46 publications. Previous affiliations of Mark S. Schwartz include University of Pennsylvania & University of Southampton.
Chat about Author
Papers
Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study
TL;DR: In this article, the authors report some findings of what seems to be the first study of this topic and present data regarding the effects of patents on imitation costs and on the rate of innovation.
1.4K
Corporate social responsibility: a three-domain approach
TL;DR: In this article, a three-domain approach is presented in which the three core domains of economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities are depicted in a Venn model framework, which yields seven CSR categories resulting from the overlap of the three main domains.
1.4K
The Effectiveness of Business Codes: A Critical Examination of Existing Studies and the Development of an Integrated Research Model
Muel Kaptein,Mark S. Schwartz +1 more
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose an integrated research model and suggest directions for future research on the effectiveness of business codes, and suggest that the main reasons for divergent findings are: varying definitions of key terms; deficiencies in the empirical data and methodologies used; and a lack of theory.
The Nature of the Relationship between Corporate Codes of Ethics and Behaviour
TL;DR: In this article, a study was conducted in order to examine the relationship between corporate codes of ethics and behaviour and found that these codes are a potential factor influencing the behaviour of corporate agents.
414
Integrating and Unifying Competing and Complementary Frameworks: The Search for a Common Core in the Business and Society Field
TL;DR: In the field of business and society, several complementary frameworks appear to be in competition for preeminence as mentioned in this paper, and difficulties remain in understanding what each construct really means, or should mean, and how each might relate to the others.
398