Search results

In their chapter, Rupp, Bashshur, and Liao (this volume) have made an impressive contribution to the literature on multi-level justice. These authors have provided both a precise conceptual definition of justice climate and a measurement strategy (referent shift) that will greatly smooth the progress of future empirical inquiry. The goal of this commentary is to expand these important ideas by moving in two directions. First, we discuss what it means to be an individual when justice is experienced as a member of a team. Toward this end, we describe research on social identity theory and social categorization theory, emphasizing how these paradigms could further increase our knowledge. Second, we discuss two new manifestations of multi-level justice that have hitherto been neglected: intraunit justice (group perceptions regarding how team members generally treat one another) and interunit justice (perceptions regarding the way one group treats another). All of these multi-level justice concepts are organized into a new taxonomy.

This chapter seeks to integrate and expand on the ideas presented by Cropanzano, Li, and James (this volume), Ambrose and Schminke (this volume), and Rupp, Bashshur, and Liao (this volume). First, it summarizes and comments on the key insights made by each set of authors. It then presents five propositions, along with some preliminary evidence supporting each: (1) employees can and do make source-based justice judgments; (2) justice treatment is directed at different targets (including individuals and groups, both internal and external to the organization); (3) global justice climate may be a useful approach to studying justice once the relationship between more specific justice climates (e.g., interunit or intraunit justice climate) is better understood; (4) it is necessary to study both general and specific justice climates to understand the unfolding of justice reactions over time; and (5) a climate for justice can be behaviorally measured and trained.

The purpose of this paper to aim at exploring the links between employees’ perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice on one hand and innovation climate and readiness to innovate on the other hand. The role of innovation climate in predicting readiness to innovate is also examined. Further, the study attempts to test the mediating role of innovation climate in justice-readiness to innovate relationship.

This paper aims at exploring the links between employees’ perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice on one hand and innovation climate and readiness to innovate on the other hand. The role of innovation climate in predicting readiness to innovate is also examined. Further, the study attempts to test the mediating role of innovation climate in justice-readiness to innovate relationship.

The findings revealed that perception of justice played a key role in employees’ perception of innovation climate. Innovation climate was found to be positively and significantly related to readiness to innovate. Employees’ readiness to try new ways of doing things and question the existing habits of the work tended to show significant and positive relationship to organizational justice. Innovation climate played a significant yet a partial role in mediating the link between justice and readiness to innovate.

The sample represented only governmental sector and only one emirate of the UAE's seven emirates. The implications of the findings for researchers together with some future guidelines are discussed in the paper.

The paper provides practitioners with some advice about understanding and managing justice and innovation.

The paper is the first study in the UAE and the Middle East that examines the links between justice, innovation climate and readiness to innovate.

The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of ethical climate and organizational justice perceptions on the quality of manager‐employee relationships via leader‐member exchange (LMX). It also aims to explore differences between distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice perceptions as related to LMX. The purpose of this research was to investigate the relative strength of connections between ethical climate, these three types of justice perceptions, and LMX.

The research was conducted via survey administration of questionnaires. The sample consisted of 105 working adults in an Israeli telecommunications company.

It was found that there was a significant positive relationship between perceived interactional justice and levels of LMX. No significant relationships were present between LMX and the other types of justice perceptions. Furthermore, it was discovered that there was a significant positive relationship between ethical climate and LMX. As an important, unexpected finding the study discovered a significant negative relationship between ethical climate and procedural justice.

This is one of the few studies to examine the effects of justice perceptions together with ethical climate perceptions on LMX. As such, these findings offer guidance in the development and implementation of further studies to examine the linkages between these constructs. In particular, it suggests that these findings provide a framework for examining the potential moderating role of ethical climate in the relationship between interactional justice perceptions and LMX.

This paper aims to contribute to the ethical debate over roles and responsibilities to address the injustices of climate change and its impacts. The current impasse over taking action may lie in the very different ways people view the world and their place in it. The aim is to explore some profound contradictions within differing strands of knowledge feeding into common understandings of climate justice.

A literature review of appropriate peer-reviewed and “grey” literature was conducted with a view to defining the term “climate justice”.

In addition to there being no single, clear definition of climate justice, a fundamental schism was found between what indigenous peoples want to see happen and what industrialised nations can do with respect to both the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

One limitation to defining climate justice, and reason for publishing, is the lack of peer-reviewed work on this topic.

This paper has many practical implications, the most fundamental of which is the need to reach a consensus over rights to the Earth’s resources. If humanity, within which there are many societies, chooses to follow a truly equitable path post 2015, industrialised countries and corporations will need to move away from “endless growth economics”. The ways in which climate justice might be operationalised in future are considered, including the concept of a “climate-justice” checklist.

While the reconciliation proposed in this paper might be considered idealistic, unless it is acknowledged the Earth’s resources are limited, over-exploited and for all people to use sustainably, thus requiring a reduction in consumption by individuals relatively affluent in global terms, climate negotiators will continue talking about the same issues without achieving meaningful change.

This paper aims to argue that climate justice constitutes a contested discourse reflecting the material interests of social groups that contribute to its production. For climate justice to have integrity, it must be rooted in the material interests of those social groups negatively affected by, and engaged in struggles against, the hydrocarbon economy. The paper locates contestation of discourse production in an understanding of social movement processes.

The paper is a theoretical contribution to the debate about climate justice, drawing on data (published and unpublished) from Scotland.

The paper concludes that scholars engaged in climate justice work should have consideration to the material interest embedded in the discourse. The pedagogical and dialogical work of engagement with the militant particularism of local struggles against the hydrocarbon industry is an important contribution to discourse construction, and ultimately social transformation is required to achieve climate justice.

This is primarily a theoretical paper, although it draws on limited case study data from environmental conflicts in Scotland.

The argument has practical implications for work in climate justice, including research, policy development and social movement mobilisation.

This is intended as a contribution to the social transformation required to achieve climate justice.

The paper draws on existing theoretical frameworks, especially Marxian approaches to discourse and social movement studies, to critique and contribute to the newly developing field of climate justice.

This paper aims to use the results of a synthesis of six social science fellowships to explore how alternative framings of the climate justice debate can support fairer climate policies.

The original fellowships drew on sociology, economics, geography, psychology and international relations. Cross-cutting themes of rights, risks and responsibilities were identified following a series of workshops. Results of these workshops were discussed in a number of policy fora. Analysis of the feedback from that fora is used to propose the case for a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to building a more accessible climate justice debate.

Existing climate policy unjustly displaces a) responsibility for emission reductions, b) risks from climate impacts and c) loss of rights. Foundational questions of acceptable risk have been ignored and a just climate policy requires procedurally just ways of revisiting this first-order question.

The contribution a rights, risks and responsibilities framework can bring to a process of educating for climate stewardship is at this stage theoretical. It is only through trialling a rights, risks and responsibilities approach to climate justice debates with the relevant stakeholders that its true potential can be assessed.

Policy actors expressed strong resistance to the idea of overhauling current decision-making processes and policy frameworks. However, moving forward from this point with a more nuanced and tactical understanding of the dialectical relationship between rights, risks and responsibilities has the potential to improve those processes.

Educating for climate stewardship will be more effective if it adopts an approach which seeks a co-production of knowledge. Beginning with the foundational question of what counts as an acceptable level of climate risk offers an inclusive entry point into the debate.

Reveals limits to public engagement with climate policy generated by a ‘justice’ framing.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the moderating role of organizational size and individual tenure on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational affective commitment. Based on the literature on organizational justice and justice climate, this paper tests whether the role of justice climate, measured at the organizational level, is affected by these organizational and individual characteristics in determining individual organizational affective commitment.

Data on 20,936 employees from 1,496 companies that were included in the 2004 Workplace Employment Relationships Survey were used.

Hierarchical linear modeling analysis shows that the importance of the justice climate extends beyond its effect on individual perceptions. Moreover, whereas the organization size does not influence the justice climate – affective commitment relationship, organizational tenure moderates it.

This study shows the impact of justice climate on affective commitment beyond the effect of individual justice. It also examines organizational (organization size) and individual characteristics (tenure) as possible moderators, constructs rarely considered in studies on justice climate.

The chapter by Rupp, Bashur, and Liao (in this volume) is rich with ideas for the study of a justice climate. This comment on their chapter focuses on three areas that flow from their presentation: issues in modeling climate strength, complexity and simplicity in conceptualizing a justice climate, and an alternative conceptualization of a justice climate. Specifically, it describes how polynomial regression and response surface methodology may assist researchers in examining climate fit. The comment also describes the benefits of a simplified view of a justice climate – one focusing on the overall justice climate. Finally, it develops a framework for examining a climate for justice – a climate that promotes fair behavior in organizations.

This chapter reviews research on multi-level organizational justice. The first half of the chapter provides the historical context for this issue, discusses organizational-level antecedents to individual-level justice perceptions (i.e., culture and organizational structure), and then focuses on the study of justice climate. A summary model depicts the justice climate findings to date and gives recommendations for future research. The second half of the chapter discusses the process of justice climate emergence. Pulling from classical bottom-up and top-down climate emergence models as well as contemporary justice theory, it outlines a theoretical model whereby individual differences and environmental characteristics interact to influence justice judgments. Through a process of information sharing, shared and unique experiences, and interactions among group members, a justice climate emerges. The chapter concludes by presenting ideas about how such a process might be empirically modeled.