Booz & Company’s ‘The Global Innovation 1000’ annual study of companies investing the most in innovation (Stewart 2011) reveals a surprising fact: fewer than half of survey respondents’ business strategy [that results from enterprise policy—corporate governance], innovation strategy, and corporate culture are aligned. Furthermore, the data reveals that the [governance]-strategy-culture connection has powerful multiplier effects, dramatically increasing the effectiveness of R&D spending (Apple, named first for innovativeness by executives, ranks just 70th in R&D spending). The most successful innovators’ culture supports innovation, and accelerates innovative processes (Jaruzelski et al. 2011). Hence, enterprise-governance-and-management-process innovation toward corporate (social) responsibility must match enterprise culture; enterprise’s stakeholders’ WB also matches human rights and should focus on people.

Thus our hypothesis reads: enterprise’s stakeholders’ WB results from properly oriented enterprise vision/policy (aimed at social and other responsibility). To reach a (socially) responsible enterprise policy making it socially responsible and generating stakeholders’ WB, enterprise shareholders and other stakeholders should have consciousness that SR/WB matters (Sect. 1.2). This arises, among others, from their spiritual intelligence and contemporary circumstances (Sect. 1.3). Section 1.4 covers enterprise vision and (responsible) enterprise policy. Section 1.5 covers well-being. Section 1.6 includes concluding remarks.

We detected no texts exposing the links discussed by us here.

Authors take a requisitely holistic approach to discuss interdependence of enterprise policy (corporate governance), social responsibility, and enterprise stakeholders’ well-being. This helps readers understand that enterprise competitiveness depends on innovation of the corporate governance- and management-process (and style) toward corporate (social) responsibility. The latter namely means ‘responsibility for impacts on society’ and is based on (ethics of) interdependence and (requisitely) holistic approach (Dankova et al. 2015; EU 2011; ISO 2010; Mulej and Dyck 2014; Mulej and Čagran 2016; Mulej and Hrast 2016; Mulej et al. 2016). Methodologically we used desk research approach, backed by field research on social responsibility (SR) and well-being (WB) as a precondition for business success (for details, see Šarotar Žižek 2012; Šarotar Žižek et al. 2012, 2015).

This desk research includes international references, while the field research covered Slovenia as a European Union member state (Šarotar Žižek 2012; Šarotar Žižek et al. 2015a, b, c, d). But it did not include enough the connection between VCEN (values, culture, ethics and norms in synergy), social responsibility (SR), requisite holism (RH), and the enterprise vision/policy (Štrukelj 2015, 2016a). This is the point here.

Its practical implications offer practitioners suggestions about their management style and process to help them generate related non-technological innovations aimed at promotion of SR and WB in their respective units. This would support their business success (ibid.).

The most important social implications suggest that SR enterprise’s vision/policy should include SR of behavior motivating the enterprise stakeholders’ modern, requisitely holistic, VCEN and behavior, enabling all stakeholders’ WB, long-term survival of their enterprises, co-workers, their partners, community and nature (as critical preconditions of humankin’s survival on the Planet Earth).

All changes, including innovations, humans are facing today take place within the global economic environment (Barney and Hasterly 2011; Belak, Ja. 2010; Coulter 2005; David 2011; Duh 2015; Duh and Štrukelj 2011; Dyck 2011; Jaruzelski et al. 2011; Lebe and Mulej 2014; Mulej et al. 2007, 2009a, b, c, d; Mulej and Dyck 2014; Mulej 2013, 2015; Šarotar Žižek et al. 2011; Štrukelj 2015, 2016b; Štrukelj and Mulej 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b; Wheelen and Hunger 2010; etc.). These changes result from increasingly important processes linking inventions, suggestions, potential innovations, and innovations and their diffusion to many users (IID). IID result from the necessary creativeness and innovativeness, enabling new ideas, and constructive thinking; now, perspectives differ originating from different knowledge, VCEN, and experiences (see Mulej from 1974 onwards, incl. Mulej et al. 2013). Therefore, also the enterprise’s performance, and the ways of its achievement continuously change (Štrukelj and Mulej 2009, 2011b; Štrukelj 2015).

Mapping the future sustainable competitiveness requires research developing the new concept of competitiveness, with much of the research focusing on how sustainable development and competitiveness interact (Balkytė and Peleckis 2010; Rejc Buhovac and Epstein 2014; Štrukelj 2016b). One way of reaching enterprise competitiveness results from enterprise/corporate governance- and management-process (and style) innovation toward corporate responsibility (Štrukelj and Mulej 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011b; Štrukelj 2014, 2015, 2016a; Štrukelj and Šuligoj 2014), including human rights by treating coworkers as human beings rather than as machines’ parts, and sustainability (Whatley 2011).

Thus we discuss the thesis: there is interdependence of corporate governance (enterprise policy), social responsibility, and enterprise stakeholders’ well-being (WB); we only warn that for these one needs the right information (Sternad et al. 2011; Štrukelj and Sternad Zabukovšek 2016).

Enterprise polic...