Scale, scope and accountability: A response to Lloyd-Jones and Lewis

Steven Toms; John Wilson

doi:10.1080/0007679060103089

Scale, scope and accountability: A response to Lloyd-Jones and Lewis

Steven Toms, John Wilson

Management

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

Abstract

This is a response to the critique by Lloyd-Jones and Lewis of our 2003 Business History article. It makes a renewed case for the extension of business history research into corporate governance and accountability, such that this new dimension is considered in conjunction with the analysis of scale and scope. Our approach and that of Lloyd Jones and Lewis demonstrate that governance and accountability, or the lack of it, in conjunction with strategy and structure, are useful dimensions of the cases they analyse, and, we would continue to argue, in the general case as well.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	106-111
Number of pages	6
Journal	Business History
Volume	49
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/0007679060103089
Publication status	Published - Jan 2007

Keywords

strategy and structure
corporate governance and accountability
paradigms of business history
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Access to Document

10.1080/0007679060103089

Cite this

@article{f75bf14414cf4af58770150fefc225b5,

title = "Scale, scope and accountability: A response to Lloyd-Jones and Lewis",

abstract = "This is a response to the critique by Lloyd-Jones and Lewis of our 2003 Business History article. It makes a renewed case for the extension of business history research into corporate governance and accountability, such that this new dimension is considered in conjunction with the analysis of scale and scope. Our approach and that of Lloyd Jones and Lewis demonstrate that governance and accountability, or the lack of it, in conjunction with strategy and structure, are useful dimensions of the cases they analyse, and, we would continue to argue, in the general case as well.",

keywords = "strategy and structure, corporate governance and accountability, paradigms of business history, CORPORATE GOVERNANCE",

author = "Steven Toms and John Wilson",

year = "2007",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1080/0007679060103089",

language = "English",

volume = "49",

pages = "106--111",

journal = "Business History",

issn = "0007-6791",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Scale, scope and accountability: A response to Lloyd-Jones and Lewis

AU - Toms, Steven

AU - Wilson, John

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - This is a response to the critique by Lloyd-Jones and Lewis of our 2003 Business History article. It makes a renewed case for the extension of business history research into corporate governance and accountability, such that this new dimension is considered in conjunction with the analysis of scale and scope. Our approach and that of Lloyd Jones and Lewis demonstrate that governance and accountability, or the lack of it, in conjunction with strategy and structure, are useful dimensions of the cases they analyse, and, we would continue to argue, in the general case as well.

AB - This is a response to the critique by Lloyd-Jones and Lewis of our 2003 Business History article. It makes a renewed case for the extension of business history research into corporate governance and accountability, such that this new dimension is considered in conjunction with the analysis of scale and scope. Our approach and that of Lloyd Jones and Lewis demonstrate that governance and accountability, or the lack of it, in conjunction with strategy and structure, are useful dimensions of the cases they analyse, and, we would continue to argue, in the general case as well.

KW - strategy and structure

KW - corporate governance and accountability

KW - paradigms of business history

KW - CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

U2 - 10.1080/0007679060103089

DO - 10.1080/0007679060103089

M3 - Editorial

SN - 0007-6791

VL - 49

SP - 106

EP - 111

JO - Business History

JF - Business History

IS - 1

ER -