Search results

Organizational researchers studying well-being – as well as organizations themselves – often place much of the burden on employees to manage and preserve their own well-being. Missing from this discussion is how – from a human resources management (HRM) perspective – organizations and managers can directly and positively shape the well-being of their employees. The authors use this review to paint a picture of what organizations could be like if they valued people holistically and embraced the full experience of employees’ lives to promote well-being at work. In so doing, the authors tackle five challenges that managers may have to help their employees navigate, but to date have received more limited empirical and theoretical attention from an HRM perspective: (1) recovery at work; (2) women’s health; (3) concealable stigmas; (4) caregiving; and (5) coping with socio-environmental jolts. In each section, the authors highlight how past research has treated managerial or organizational support on these topics, and pave the way for where research needs to advance from an HRM perspective. The authors conclude with ideas for tackling these issues methodologically and analytically, highlighting ways to recruit and support more vulnerable samples that are encapsulated within these topics, as well as analytic approaches to study employee experiences more holistically. In sum, this review represents a call for organizations to now – more than ever – build thriving organizations.

Standards for Accounting and Review Services (SSARS) Number (No.) 1, “Compilations and Review Services” (AICPA, 1979), provides guidance for public accountants associated with unaudited financial statements through compilations and reviews. SSARS No. 8, “Amendment to SSARS No. 1, Compilation and Review of Financial Statements” (2000), extends this guidance to plain paper statements. Unlike traditional compilations, plain paper statements are intended only for the use of informed members of management.

To examine the effects of SSARS No. 8, we surveyed practicing Certified Public Accountants (CPAs) and bank loan officers to measure their perceptions of what constitute “submitted financial statements,” “third parties,” “informed members of management,” and other key terms that aroused concerns described in SSARS No. 8 comment letters. We find that several years after the issuance of SSARS No. 8, CPAs, even those somewhat familiar with SSARS No. 8, and bankers who have experience with plain paper statements do not fully understand the definitions and applications of SSARS No. 8. In addition, several of the concerns cited in the statement's Exposure Draft (ED) comment letters linger. The results suggest the need to either better education plain paper statement users or revise the standards, perhaps prohibiting a CPA's association with plain paper statements. We also identify future research questions.

An efficient corporate social responsibility (CSR) framework in many economies has been linked with human capital development, social and financial inclusion, environmental protection and better stakeholder management. This article examines the level of efficiency of the CSR framework in Nigeria; it underscores the developmental potentials of CSR practices within the Nigerian business community. However, a prevailing trend of haphazard and sometimes dodgy CSR practices by free riding rogue companies mars such potentials. Underpinning these dodgy practices has been a CSR ‘business case’ argument coupled with dysfunctional business (corporate) law assumptions among other causative factors. The article appraises the implications of these causative factors and towards minimising the haphazard practices, proposes corporate law reforms through which the Nigerian CSR framework may become more effective.

In the wake of growing pressures to make scholarly knowledge commercially relevant via translation into intellectual property, various techno-scientific communities have mobilized to create open access/open source experiments. These efforts are based on the ideas and success of free and open source software, and generally try to exploit two salient features: increased openness and circulation, and distributed collective innovation. Transferring these ideas from software to science often involves unforeseen challenges, one of which is that these movements can be deemed, often incorrectly, as heretical by university administrators and technology transfer officers who valorize metrics such as number of patents filed and granted, spin-off companies created, and revenue generated. In this paper, we discuss nascent efforts to foster an open source movement in nanotechnology and provide an illustrative case of an arsenic removal invention. We discuss challenges facing the open source nano movement that include making a technology widely accessible and the associated politics of metrics.