Search results

Focuses on what can be referred to as the “fundamental philosophical issues of corporate governance”. Outlines the interdependence of various kinds of governance. Demonstrates that corporate governance is part of a bundle of governances and that, in this respect, it occupies a leading place to the degree that its principles are becoming consolidated. Then discusses in a more detailed manner what is meant by the term “dominant functionalism”. Then deals with the question of the equilibrium between sovereignty and legitimacy from the point of view of corporate governance. In effect, rules of governance (considered as the designation of a sovereign power) are searching for a legitimizing instance originating outside the framework of those rules. Finally, covers the proprietarialist origins of stakeholder theory, origins which correspond to a moderate liberal tradition.

The notion of “sustainable development” has had a short and tumultuous history, including a departure from economic reductionism by focusing on a multidimensional aspect and addressing the issues of its scope across many disciplines. It has become a project enabling a rethinking of capitalism based on the concept of a reformed type of capitalism. The purpose of this paper is to study this issue.

The paper is based on the following arguments: the presentation of sustainable development as a “vague” theory, an empirical proof of this vagueness with regard to corporate actions whose justification is based around the notion of sustainable development, and finally the ambiguities of the notion.

The notion of sustainable development raises the question of an apparent consensus on its correlates: solidarity, responsibility, equity, etc. It tends to establish a protean sense of the firms' responsibility, particularly the larger ones. The largely political dimension of the notion has today consequences on its usage. Sustainable development as addressed in the firm tends to take on the dimension of a management issue, which is likely to persist due to its larger political dimension.

The paper provides insight on the catch‐all dimension of the notion and its appealing rhetorical character and bases the ambiguity related with references to an “in‐between.” On the institutional level, it refers to a social and fair economy that stands arguably in between the state and the market. On the methodological level, it refers to heuristics of fear and hope.

The concept of contract contributes extensively to an essentialist conception of the organization (the contract would then be its essence), a descriptive method (describing the organization as a contract or set of contracts), and a normative standpoint. More recently, it has been epitomized by the “psychological contract”. The concept of contract is about will, agreement, obligation, promise, commitment, staying true to one's commitments, cooperation, sanction and bond. The purpose of this paper is to discuss these manifestations prior to comparing the notion of social contract with psychological contract based on two criteria: an anthropology of the individual and an anthropology of the contract.

After delineating the notion of contract (and its correlates agency, gift, exchange and association) and reviewing the “epithet‐based” contracts, the two dimensions of the contract (social and psychological) will be addressed and compared based on two anthropologies, one of the individual and one of the contract.

This comparison underscores the relevance of contractualism today and the richness of comparing across different eras and perimeters. If these two aspects have anything in common, it is whatever links the contract with sociality.

This comparing process must underscore two limitations, namely anachronism (the two texts were written two centuries apart), and underpinning, a political underpinning in the social contract and an organizational underpinning in the psychological contract. It thus looks as though the organization was made of the same substance as the nation, which – like the notion of governance – may lead to some kind of confusion between contract and constitution, contracting power and constituent powers.

The paper discusses a key notion in political philosophy and organization science.

The paper presents a comparison between two key conceptions of the notion of contract.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the notion of “responsibility”.

Discussing the notion of “responsibility” according to two main philosophers (Paul Ricoeur and Hans Jonas) and its legal conception.

In philosophy, the issue of responsibility appears as a second‐level question, thus pointing up the first‐level ones (e.g. action, liberty, causality, autonomy). As such, responsibility necessarily reduces the philosophical field, otherwise the issue becomes unmanageable – if the issue ever was manageable! The concept of responsibility is both recent and fuzzy. The most commonly associated word is obligation. The notion of responsibility raises the problem of its conditions of possibility with the issue of imputation and the binary: imputation and sanction. Self‐referentiality and the circumstances surrounding calculation (of sanctions) are key aspects.

The question arises: What is hidden behind the notion?

Beware of the performative aspects linked to the notion of “responsibility”.

The current meaning of responsibility is embedded in today's political ideology (the “liberal moment”).

The paper takes into account the philosophical background of a notion currently used in management.

The purpose of this study is to examine learning and employee-driven innovation (EDI) in the public sector, with a particular focus on the interplay between employee engagement and organisational conditions.

The material consists of qualitative interviews with 23 participants from three municipal sites of innovation support that participated in a national programme aiming to strengthen municipalities’ innovation work.

The study found numerous constraining organisational conditions resulting in consequential loss of employee engagement for EDI. The conclusion drawn is that employee engagement and enabling organisational conditions are central to EDI in public sector workplaces, and that incorporating EDI into municipal daily operations requires paying attention to the interplay between organisational conditions and employee engagement.

This paper provides important guidance for supporting EDI in the public sector. Implementing EDI into operations requires employee engagement to be successful. However, employees’ engagement should not be overlooked or taken for granted. A practical implication of this study is that EDI in the workplace must be encouraged by creating a learning environment that supports innovative learning in the workplace. In practice, measures should be taken to support employee engagement by creating organisational conditions that provide a more expansive learning environment to ensure the continuity and perpetuation of EDI in public sector organisations.

From a workplace learning perspective, the purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between conditions for learning and stressful work and, to analyse the learning conditions that support the management of stressful work. The model of effort-reward imbalance (ERI) is adopted as an indicator of stressful work by measuring the relationship between Effort and Rewards in work.

The material consists of questionnaire data from 4,420 employees in ten public and private organisations in Sweden.

The results provide evidence that suggests that some workplace conditions known to enable learning also indicates a comparatively better chance for employees to manage stressful work. An innovative practice reduces the feelings of effort, whereas managerial support and knowledge sharing serve as rewards contributing to appreciation, while competence and career development create rewards in the form of opportunities for progression.

Workplaces in which there are enabling learning conditions can provide employees with ample resources for managing stressful work.

This paper explores the complex relationship between workplace learning conditions and the ERI model seen from a workplace learning perspective which has received relatively sparse attention in the literature.