Search results

This paper aims to explore why a country with significant under-investment in water infrastructure has not successfully imposed domestic water charges. Drawing on an economization lens, it examines how an economy emerged in the imposition of water charges but was subsequently hidden due to their politically motivated suspension.

Drawing on documentary evidence, a theoretically informed examination of the “economization” process is set out. This examination recognizes the central role sustainability plays in water management but illustrates how sustainability must be integrated with environmental, social, economic, cultural and political factors.

The findings set out the challenges experienced by a state-owned water company as they attempt to manage domestic water charges. The paper reveals that while the suspension of water charges has hidden the “economy” within government subvention, the economic and sustainable imperative to invest in and pay for water remains, but is enveloped within a political “hot potato” bringing about a quasi-political/quasi-economic landscape.

The findings demonstrate how the effective and sustainable management of domestic water supply requires collaboration between multiple participants, including the government, the European Union, private citizens and the water protest movement.

While highlighting the challenges faced by a country that has seriously under-invested in its water resources, the paper reflects the societal consequences of charging individuals for water, raising important questions about what water actually is – a right, a product or a political object.

Showing how an economy around domestic water supply in Ireland was revealed, but subsequently hidden in “the political”, the paper illustrates how sustainability is as much about economics and politics as it is about ecological balance and natural resources.

Thus far, we have treated critical thinking descriptively and analytically in previous chapters. In this, the epilogue, as a closing chapter, we intend to consider critical thinking normatively – what it should be, ideally and holistically. We do this in four stages. First, recapitulating the essential concepts, theories, and paradigms of social welfare, social well-being, and social progress, we suggest that critical thinking should ultimately understand and further social progress and social well-being for all humanity. Second, we submit that the great wealth of corporate and free-market capitalism should – as spiritual capital – benefit all, especially the poor and the marginalized. Third, in order to realize the first two objectives, we posit that critical thinking should be repositioned as the art of aesthetic reasoning and aesthetic rationality such that, fourth, it is best realized within the framework of social mindfulness. We discuss major theories grounding these four parts and reflect on their managerial implications and propose future directions for critical thinking research and development.

The purpose of this paper is to explore board functions and their location in family firms.

Through structured induction in a four-case study of medium-sized Swedish family firms, the authors demonstrate that board functions can be located in other arenas than in the common board and suggest propositions that explain their distribution.

(1) The board is but one of several arenas where board functions are performed. (2) The functions performed by the board vary in type and emphasis. (3) The non-family directors in a family firm serve the owners, even sometimes governing them, in what the authors term “bidirectional governance”. (4) The kin strategy of the family influences their governance. (5) The utilization of a board for governance stems from the family (together with its constitution, kin strategy and governance strategy), the board composition and the business conditions of the firm.

Being a case study the findings are restricted to concepts and theoretical propositions. Using structured induction, the study is not solely inductive but still contains the subjectivity of induction.

Governance agents should have an instrumental view on the board, considering it one possible governance arena among others, thereby economizing on governance.

The institutional pressure toward active boards could paradoxically reduce the importance of the board in family firms.

The board of a family company differs in its emphasis of board functions and these functions are performed with varying emphases in different governance arenas. The authors propose the concept of kin strategy, which refers to the governance importance of the structure of the owner and observations on bi-directional governance, indicating that the board can govern the owners.

Alain Verbeke is one of the world’s leading thinkers on international business (IB) and globalization, a renowned scholar and educator who contributes to creating a better global business environment by addressing some of today’s most critical challenges. He was one of the first scholars to advance a theoretically rigorous and practically significant perspective on international corporate social responsibility (CSR). Verbeke’s work on international CSR is particularly impactful because it is rooted in IB theory and based on a realistic set of assumptions about the behavior of managers, policymakers, and other market and nonmarket stakeholders. In this chapter, the authors apply theoretical principles central to Verbeke’s research – most notably behavioral assumptions of bounded rationality and bounded reliability – to analyze businesses’ and societies’ pace of progress in relation to stated environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. The authors argue that bounded rationality and reliability challenges create misalignment between stated/imposed commitments toward ESG performance, and economic actors’ ability to deliver on these commitments. The authors discuss examples of such misalignment, focusing on tensions among stakeholders, between stakeholder organizations and firms, and within firms. The authors propose that to be relevant for policy and practice, the sustainability research should be based on realistic microfoundational assumptions.

This chapter deals with global sustainability, in its old and modern concepts, typologies, and theories. Most concepts of sustainability, we contend, are anthropocentric, a self-serving attitude that believes in the utmost superiority of man over the rest of the nonhuman universe, which seemingly privileges humans to use, extract, and exploit planetary resources for industrialization and infrastructure development and presumably lead to human growth and prosperity (the Anthropocene). The cost of this however is terrestrial depletion, deterioration, degradation, and decadence that manifest in the current global phenomena of global warming, global climate change, Arctic meltdowns, ocean acidity, massive deforestation, and global carbon footprints, which have collectively rendered human habitability on this earth drastically reduced and jeopardized. In this context, we review the timeline (1992–2022) of the United Nations' sustainability negotiations and accords, several nonanthropocentric and nonanthropomorphic conceptualizations of global sustainability such as Leopold Aldo's land ethic, deep ecology of Naess and associates, Thomas Berry's ecozoic ecology (updated by Spethmann). Combining the best nonanthropocentric developments, we propose a holistic concept of “natural sustainability,” more consonant with critical thinking, which mandates reduced or disciplined use of planetary resources such that Nature can regenerate and renew herself.

Natural sustainability advocates a more fruitful integrative ecozoic paradigm of “sustainability centrism,” which seeks cosmic sustainability of Mother Nature for herself as an end in herself, and we spell out its implications for organizational science and corporate responsibility as an extended global community.

This chapter runs into three parts. Part I: Major Sustainability Types versus Ecozoic Worldview of Cosmic Sustainability; Part II: Conceptualization of Natural Sustainability and Its Justification based on Environmental Ethics, Ecozoic Sustainability, and Deep Ecology; and Part III: Capturing Nature as Nature and Her Moral Imperatives for Understanding Natural Sustainability. Toward the end of this chapter, we also discuss managerial implications and directions for future research.

The incidence of the COVID-19 pandemic has come as a big blow to every dimension of any economy. It disrupts the usual constructs and functioning of economies across the globe. Different macroeconomic variables such as income, employment, etc. have been in shambles because of the unprecedented pandemic. Such a situation needs an alternative thought to turn around everything, and circular economic approach indeed is a potent tool to weather this tumultuous situation. Circular economic framework facilitates recycling and reusing of wastes discarded. Because of various activities, wastes are generated, and if products could be generated out of wastes through a system, it would be beneficial to economies as this ensures the judicious utilisation of resources. Recycling, refurbishing and reducing are three important pillars of the circular economic framework, where product lifecycle gets extended and prudent use of existing resources can be possible. The usage of resources even out of wastes stands out to be a game changer in terms of sustainability of environment. The alternative usage of resources in this way creates alternative employment opportunities. The extension of product lifecycle through recycling and reusing creates alternative rooms for employment, giving ample opportunities for sustainable development. It leads to market creation for waste products. Such a circular economy approach, paving the way for alternative employment generation, leads to sustainable development. The present work tries to re-examine the efficacy of the circular economic framework and its resilience in the context of the unprecedented pandemic in terms of providing alternative employment opportunities. It attempts to underscore how circular economic construct positively impacts prudent use of resources through alternative employment generation in pandemic.

This paper shows how Bruno Latour’s novel work and methodological approach can enrich management and organization studies, accounting and science and technology studies on what it takes to redesign sustainable societal infrastructures. Latour’s notions of trials of strength, macro-actor and design as redesign are used in a case study to describe and analyse how the laboratory becomes decisive in negotiating the bridge design and project budget to the benefit of a more sustainable transport infrastructure.

Latour’s notion of the detective-author is used to research and write a longitudinal qualitative case study that reconstructs the project processes and chain of related events by following the actors/actants.

The case analysis shows how a project design becomes an emerging powerful macro-actor through the mobilization of laboratory simulations and calculations. The role of the project budget changes; from a strong supporting role as input to a decision option in favour of a cheaper stayed bridge to a weak role as an output from a process of redesign supporting a much larger, costlier and more sustainable suspension bridge.

We use Latour’s methodological approach to engage primarily in detailed process descriptions to go beyond the often-pointless call for further theory development and to rather account for what is at work in specific situations. Latour’s notions of redesign as an outcome from trials of strength, we consider a useful approach to further our understanding since it also takes account of the distributed knowledge production that is integral to the actors’ cognitions and recognitions. Relatedly, the specific Latourian notion of redesign opens up new avenues for researching the more or less powerful role accounting devices such as a project budget can play in valuing, supporting and/or undermining the design of sustainable societal infrastructures.

The purpose of this study is to investigate if a firm's exchange complexity profile (that is, the linkages between the firm and its environment) influences investor behavior at the negotiation table where a firm valuation is derived.

The authors utilize Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Specifically, the authors utilize fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), a QCA variant that allows the researcher to assign graduated membership in sets.

When the authors dichotomize their positions as either higher stakes that favor the seller (high capital, low equity, high valuation) or lower stakes that favor the buyer (low capital, high equity, low valuation), and when the authors focus primarily on the equity outcome, the authors find that investors adopt a reductionist stance that adheres to a transaction cost economics logic under conditions of lower stakes and higher complexity as well as higher stakes and lower complexity conditions. The authors interpret this to mean that equity serves as a counter-balancing lever for a firm's exchange complexity configuration.

On a theoretical level, the authors showcase the exchange complexity framework and differentiate its position within the extant frameworks that address a firm's competitive advantage. More generally, the authors note that this framework brings the discipline of micro-economics and the field of strategic management closer together, providing scholars with a new tool enabling research across industries for the portfolio level of analysis.

Transaction cost economics sees a broad spectrum of governance structures spanned by two types of economic adaptation: autonomous and cooperative. Stakeholder theorists have drawn much inspiration from transaction cost economics but have not paid explicit attention to the centrality of the idea of adaptation in this literature. This study aims to address this gap.

The authors develop a novel conceptual framework applying the distinction between the two types of economic adaptation to stakeholder theory.

The authors argue that the idea of cooperative adaptation is particularly useful for describing the firm’s collaboration with primary stakeholders in the joint value creation process. In contrast, autonomous adaptation is more relevant for firms interacting with secondary stakeholders who are not directly engaged in joint value creation and may not have formal contractual relationships with the firm. Accordingly, cooperative adaptation can be seen as vital for resolving team production problems affecting joint value creation, whereas autonomous adaptation addresses how the firm maintains legitimacy within the larger stakeholder environment.

Similar to its significance for transaction cost economics, the distinction between the two types of adaptation equips stakeholder theory with a new systematic understanding of a potentially broad spectrum of firm–stakeholder collaboration forms.