Search results

In the early 1930s, Nicholas Kaldor could be classified as an Austrian economist. The author reconstructs the intertwined paths of Kaldor and Friedrich A. Hayek to disequilibrium economics through the theoretical deficiencies exposed by the Austrian theory of capital and its consequences on equilibrium analysis.

The author approaches the discussion using a theoretical and historical reconstruction based on published and unpublished materials.

The integration of capital theory into a business cycle theory by the Austrians and its shortcomings – e.g. criticized by Piero Sraffa and Gunnar Myrdal – called attention to the limitation of the theoretical apparatus of equilibrium analysis in dynamic contexts. This was a central element to Kaldor’s emancipation in 1934 and his subsequent conversion to John Maynard Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936). In addition, it was pivotal to Hayek’s reformulation of equilibrium as a social coordination problem in “Economics and Knowledge” (1937). It also had implications for Kaldor’s mature developments, such as the construction of the post-Keynesian models of growth and distribution, the Cambridge capital controversy, and his critique of neoclassical equilibrium economics.

The close encounter between Kaldor and Hayek in the early 1930s, the developments during that decade and its mature consequences are unexplored in the secondary literature. The author attempts to construct a coherent historical narrative that integrates many intertwined elements and personas (e.g. the reception of Knut Wicksell in the English-speaking world; Piero Sraffa’s critique of Hayek; Gunnar Myrdal’s critique of Wicksell, Hayek, and Keynes; the Hayek-Knight-Kaldor debate; the Kaldor-Hayek debate, etc.) that were not connected until now by previous commentators.

To date, little research has been undertaken to test the effectiveness of team coaching, with past work focusing on models, frameworks and competencies. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of team coaching within real world organizational teams and its impact on individual perceptions of team cohesion and psychological safety.

A randomized control trial (RCT) using the comparable interventions: (1) team coaching (intervention) and (2) team facilitation (control) was employed with multiple teams and multiple facilitators, measuring the impact on team cohesion and psychological safety.

The data indicate participants engaging in the team coaching intervention made greater gains in terms of their individual perceptions of psychological safety and team cohesion than individuals who received the team facilitation intervention (T1–T2).

Facilitators should apply a team coaching approach when seeking to address issues of cohesion and psychological safety within workplace teams.

This study provides the first evidence, using an RCT method, of the effectiveness of team coaching as a workplace intervention for enhancing individual perceptions of psychological safety and team cohesion.

The paper aims to show that materiality in the EU's non-financial reporting directive (NFRD) is an ambiguous concept, that its meaning is contested and that this contest for materiality is a contest for the meaning of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Thus, the paper shall highlight a new aspect of materiality as a core principle in non-financial reporting.

The paper combines a historical analysis of the EU's CSR policies, an in-depth textual analysis of the EU's 2014 NFRD and associated documents, of non-financial reporting frameworks and exemplary adoptions of the NFRD in national laws.

The paper identifies two conflicting views of materiality in the NFRD. It shows that these “additive” and “cumulative” views correspond to the approaches taken by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) frameworks and by different national adoptions of the NFRD. The paper concludes that this contest for materiality is a contest for CSR – focusing either on business risks or impacts, shareholders or stakeholders, the business case or the social case for such a responsibility.

The paper is mainly based on an in-depth analysis of the European debate on materiality in non-financial reporting. Some of the paper's descriptive results are thus limited to this particular case. However, the main conceptual findings are backed up by an analysis of internationally established reporting frameworks and scholarly debates on the issue.

The paper reveals the practical implications of the contesting “additive” and “cumulative“ understandings of materiality present in the NFRD. The paper thus further underpins the preference for a “double materiality” perspective in the revision of the NFRD and the EC's 2021 CSRD proposal.

The paper makes an original contribution in its explication of different understandings of materiality in non-financial reporting and how these eventually represent different, competing perspectives on the nature of the NFRD and of CSR.