Search results

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

This work aims to use equity theory to explore how consumers assess prosocial actions as part of a mental portfolio of purchases and behaviors in a broader marketplace, seeking balance in market exchanges. Conceptualizing marketing exchange as both an exchange of perceived value and a balance between self- and collective-interest allows for segmentation by consumer sensitivity to equity and sheds light on why prosocial consumption might occur.

Two studies validate and segment consumers via their equity sensitivity. Between-subject designs with samples of consumers and marketing managers validate an equity sensitivity index that segments how people balance self- and collective-interests in marketplace exchange and predicts prosocial consumption choices.

The results indicate that Entitled decision makers are more willing to exchange collective-interest for self-interest and emphasize choices that maximize lower prices for consumers or greater profits for firms in lieu of prosocial outcomes. Benevolent decision makers, however, are more willing to exchange self-interest for collective-interest and support prosocial outcomes.

This work moves beyond research that focuses on attitudes, values and situational factors, instead using equity theory to uncover broader marketplace motivations for prosocial consumption. The research reveals that a motivating force behind prosocial consumption is how much consumers perceive they have given to, and gotten, from, the marketplace. Segmenting the market according to how consumers balance gains and losses provides an alternate approach to studying prosocial consumption, as well as a practical approach to developing targeted marketing strategies.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

This paper aims to contribute by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the inter-relatedness of business goals among firms in strategic networks by exploring the following research question: How do different business goals coexist in networks? When joining a strategic network, firms are likely to pursue goals of self–interest, as well as those of collective interests. Goal formulation and joint network activities provide vital information toward investigating how firms utilize their network for the purpose of accessing, capturing and integrating the efforts of others to achieve their own goals.

The empirical basis is a case study of a strategic network of food producers in Denmark. Twenty qualitative face-to-face interviews with strategic network member firms constitute the empirical data that are analyzed using the software Leximancer.

This research combines the goal formulation and business of a single firm with the collective and joint effort of a strategic network to help broaden our knowledge of how different goals and strategies coexist in networks. A typology of business goals in networks is developed. Appellations of “Achievers”, “Wishers” and “Harvesters” help to characterize the different types of goal formulation strategies in these networks.

It is not appropriate to make statistical generalizations based upon this study.

This research aims to contribute by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the inter-relatedness of formulated goals, choices and interactions among firms in a strategic network context.

It will be recalled that the last monograph treated the significance of the collective agreement in society. If solely a function in society, (though having a legal basis), were to be attributed to the collective agreement, this would mean that no rights or obligations whatsoever would be created between the parties to it. This is not so in practice. It is of course a fact that no legally enforceable rights and obligations normally accrue, and as already indicated, those are moral ones and are only enforceable in honour, i.e. a gentleman's agreement. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that the collective agreement has no juridical significance. Even agreements which are binding in honour only, as for example the kind of agreement found in Balfour v. Balfour, have a known juridical nature. Furthermore, though the collective agreement is only binding in honour, its incorporation into the individual contract of employment makes its terms legally enforceable even though recourse to the courts is seldom had. As a source of rights and obligations of considerable importance the collective agreement must therefore have some juridical significance and cannot remain entirely in the realms of society.

Whatever debates may have taken place in the past in the courts and elsewhere on the status of trade unions, current legislation provides that a “… trade union … is not a body corporate …” and “…shall not be treated as if it were a body corporate…” For practical reasons however, a trade union is, inter alia, “… capable of making contracts …” which includes the entering into a collective agreement.

The study of interorganisational cooperation has gained increased currency. An important empirical and conceptual contribution in this field owes much to the network approach. The picture provided by the network approach contrasts with other models that regard cooperation as a mere contractual and legal inter‐corporate connection. Whilst accepting the existence of formal types of collaborative arrangements, the network approach emphasises the importance of informal and emergent cooperation. This paper is an attempt to extend the current perspective by focusing on interorganisational cooperation in the context of collective action phenomena. These usually involve a large number of actors concerned with the formulation of market rules, the prevention of instability and disorder and, in general, the promotion or defence of their mutual interests. The paper offers an institutional explanation of why and how collective actions emerge and influence the shape and evolution of industrial networks.

Research supporting the empathy–altruism hypothesis suggests that the value assumption of the theory of rational choice is wrong. Apparently, humans can value more than their own welfare. Empathic concern felt for someone in need can produce altruistic motivation with the ultimate goal of increasing that person's welfare. But this altruistic motivation is not always good. Research also reveals that empathy-induced altruism can pose a threat to the collective good in social dilemmas. Indeed, in certain non-trivial circumstances, it can pose a more powerful threat than does self-interested egoism.

Although individual and business actors are often mentioned as an important part of clarifying the stages that firms and their networks go through from starting up to becoming established, most studies have emphasised activities and resources rather than actors. Therefore, more needs to be known about how actors shape and are shaped through and within firms’ networks.

To clarify the process of reshaping business in networks, the focus of this study is on the role of actors in firms’ networks during the main stages of development. The major events for each stage are described in terms of how these events affect the interaction, alignment and interfaces between individual actors and business actors with a focus on individual and collective interests.

The individual actor plays a key role in the start-up stage, whereas the business actor has a key role in the final stage when the firm has become an important player in the industry. In later stages, the individual actor plays a gradually decreasing role and the business actor an increasing role. However, it appears that an analysis of the interplay between the two levels of analysis provides deeper insight into the shaping.

This study provides new insights into the role of the actor and how the actor shapes and is shaped by a firm and its network in different stages. Further, the study contributes by clarifying actors’ roles on two levels of analysis and shows the roles of interests, conflicts, interfaces and alignment in shaping firms and their networks.

This chapter reconsiders commonly held views on the ownership and management of private property, contrasting capitalist and simple property, particularly in relation to how a firm shareholder governance model has shaped society. This consideration is motivated by the scale and scope of the modern global crisis, which has combined financial, economic, social and cultural dimensions to produce world disenchantment.

By contrasting an exchange value standpoint with a use value perspective, this chapter explicates current conditions in which neither the state nor the market prevail in organising economic activity (i.e. cooperative forms of governance and community-created brand value).

This chapter offers recommendations related to formalised conditions for collective action and definitions of common guiding principles that can facilitate new expressions of the principles of coordination. Such behaviours can support the development of common resources, which then should lead to a re-appropriation of the world.

It is necessary to think of enterprises outside a company or firm context when reflecting on the end purpose and means of collective, citizen action. From a methodological standpoint, current approaches or studies that view an enterprise as an organisation, without differentiating it from a company, create a deadlock in relation to entrepreneurial collective action. The absence of a legal definition of enterprise reduces understanding and evaluations of its performance to simply the performance by a company. The implicit shift thus facilitates the assimilation of one with the other, in a funnel effect that reduces collective projects to the sole projects of capital providers.

Because forsaking society as it stands is a radical response, this historical moment makes it necessary to revisit the ideals on which modern societies build, including the philosophy of freedom for all. This utopian concept has produced an ideology that is limited by capitalist notions of private property.