Search results

The purpose of this paper is to disclose a new performance accounting method called the MultiCapital Scorecard, which makes it possible to measure, manage and report Triple Bottom Line performance relative to organization-specific norms for impacts on multiple capitals.

The authors set out to expand a pre-existing multiple capital accounting system known as Context-Based Sustainability. Whereas Context-Based Sustainability assesses the social and environmental performance of organizations relative to norms for impacts on non-economic capitals, the MultiCapital Scorecard adds economic performance to the mix.

The authors find that it is indeed possible to measure and report the social, environmental and economic performance of an organization in an integrated, context-based way relative to norms for impacts on multiple capitals. The MultiCapital Scorecard is the result.

The MultiCapital Scorecard is an open-source methodology that any organization can use. For managers or accountants interested in testing, evaluating or adopting multiple capital accounting, it provides a practical and systematic solution.

The MultiCapital Scorecard is transformational, in that it holds organizations and commerce writ large accountable to the limits in, and demands for, vital capitals in the world on a fair and proportionate basis. No other method does this, and yet it must be done if there is to be sustainability in the conduct of human affairs.

The paper describes the world’s first multiple capital, context-based accounting system that organizations can use to measure, manage and report their Triple Bottom Line performance in integrated and quantitative terms. The MultiCapital Scorecard is the authors’ original creation.

In this paper, I compare Theodore Schatzki’s practice theory, the existential phenomenology of Martin Heidegger upon whom Schatzki drew in its formation, and my own theory of institutional logics which I have sought to develop as a religious sociology of institution. I examine how Schatzki and I both differently locate our thinking at the level of practice. In this essay I also explore the possibility of appropriating Heidegger’s religious ontology of worldhood, which Schatzki rejects, in that project. My institutional logical position is an atheological religious one, poly-onto-teleological. Institutional logics are grounded in ultimate goods which are praiseworthy “objects” of striving and practice, signifieds to which elements of an institutional logic have a non-arbitrary relation, sources of and references for practical norms about how one should have, make, do or be that good, and a basis of knowing the world of practice as ordered around such goods. Institutional logics are constellations co-constituted by substances, not fields animated by values, interests or powers.

Because we are speaking against “values,” people are horrified at a philosophy that ostensibly dares to despise humanity’s best qualities. For what is more “logical” than that a thinking that denies values must necessarily pronounce everything valueless? Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism” (2008a, p. 249).

By theorizing choice as an information and decision problem, behavioral strategy research has not considered fully the agentic capacities of strategists. We argue that agentic capacities are distinct from decision-making and information-processing capacities as they rest on temporally anchored engagements with the world through habit, imagination, and judgment. We propose that understanding agency as temporally anchored action capacities is particularly important for research in behavioral strategy, as strategic phenomena encompass accumulated experience and path-dependencies (the past), ongoing competitive, market, and organizational interactions and exchanges (the present), and plans, visions, and forecasts for the future (the future). We outline how strategic choice and agency involve cognitive engagement in the three time horizons through distinct cognitive capabilities and the organizational processes that support them.

The monograph argues that American racism has two colours (white and black), not one; and that each racism dresses itself not in one clothing, but in four: (1) “Minimal” negative, when one race considers another race inferior to itself in degree, but not in nature; (2) “Maximal” negative, when one race regards another as inherently inferior; (3) “Minimal” positive, when one race elevates another race to a superior status in degree, but not in nature; and (4) “Maximal” positive, when one race believes that the other race is genetically superior. The monograph maintains that the needs of capitalism created black slavery; that black slavery produced white racism as a justification for black slavery; and that black racism is a backlash of white racism. The monograph concludes that the abolition of black slavery and the civil rights movement destroyed the social and political ground for white and black racism, while the modern development of capitalism is demolishing their economic and intellectual ground.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.