Introduction

The concept of social responsibility in leadership has not been frequently articulated in the policy and politics debate. I argue such a concept emerges from, and entails notions of, accountability (Cameron and Caza, 2005), integrity (Badaracco and Ellsworth, 1989), dependability (Meindl and Ehrlich, 1987), and authenticity (Freeman and Auster, 2011), exercised within precise powers and boundaries, as ensured by supportive political networks and local communities.

By positioning the concept of social responsibility in leadership in the centre of the mainstream political debate, this chapter will evaluate the following question: To what extent have the Mayor of Bristol, George Ferguson, and the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, embraced socially responsible leadership within urban governance?

Mayors Ferguson and Anderson present a unique, dual case study on socially responsible leadership. Both Bristol and Liverpool are part of the English Core Cities forum, which comprises large second-tier English cities where, for two decades, they have shared best practice in political governance and have lobbied the national government on issues relating to economic development (Meegan et al, 2014). Yet, both leaders are different in their social leadership approaches. Their applications are context driven and locally contingent. As such, the comparative perspective that this chapter adds nuances how we theorise social responsibilities in leadership.

Using Hudson and Lowe's (2004) model of governance, the chapter will explore the convergence of the socially responsible leadership concept from three levels: the macro level (national level), meso level (city governance) and the micro level (city electorates). It will use several broad framing principles, such as accountability, integrity, dependability and authenticity, to support the comparative analysis.

The chapter begins by mapping out the emergence of socially responsible leadership from the statutory framework at the macro level. It will highlight a tension in the legal structure between, on the one hand, the Localism Act 2011 in addressing the prevailing fiscal austerity and, on the other hand, the battle against the real lack of power conferred from Whitehall and the risk averse framework under the Public Sector (Social Value) Act 2012.

It then goes on to explore the relationship of the mayors with their political networks at the meso level, particularly with non-state actors. Here, consideration will be given to how successful both Mayors Ferguson and Anderson have been in transforming the two-way relationship from a mere co-production of local services to co-determination of local decision making with stakeholders.