Search results

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology, to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life, from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science, in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory also would be exacting, in its own right.¹

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.¹

James March argued that irrational approaches to problem solving and foolishness can be useful for addressing complex problems. Grand challenges are complex problems that often involve “guarded societal institutions” – societal beliefs and practices guarded by political or commercial powers. To explain how organizations with impossible goals dismantle such institutions by mobilizing irrationality and foolishness, we develop a process model which is illustrated with the case of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Our main contribution is to expand James March’s ideas on logics of action and organizational intelligence to advance a novel perspective for tackling big societal problems. We argue that foolishness is not only a means for finding distant solutions to complex problems but also a means for generating sustained motivation, well-being, and ideas that spark debate and lead to the questioning of taken-for-granted societal beliefs.

The 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis underlined the importance of social responsibility for the sustainable functioning of economic markets. Heralding an age of novel heterodox economic thinking, the call for integrating social facets into mainstream economic models has reached unprecedented momentum. Financial Social Responsibility bridges the finance world with society in socially conscientious investments. Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) integrates corporate social responsibility in investment choices. In the aftermath of the 2008/2009 World Financial Crisis, SRI is an idea whose time has come. Socially conscientious asset allocation styles add to expected yield and volatility of securities social, environmental, and institutional considerations. In screenings, shareholder advocacy, community investing, social venture capital funding and political divestiture, socially conscientious investors hone their interest to align financial profit maximization strategies with social concerns. In a long history of classic finance theory having blacked out moral and ethical considerations of investment decision making, our knowledge of socio-economic motives for SRI is limited. Apart from economic profitability calculus and strategic leadership advantages, this paper sheds light on socio-psychological motives underlying SRI. Altruism, need for innovation and entrepreneurial zest alongside utility derived from social status enhancement prospects and transparency may steer investors’ social conscientiousness. Self-enhancement and social expression of future-oriented SRI options may supplement profit maximization goals. Theoretically introducing potential SRI motives serves as a first step toward an empirical validation of Financial Social Responsibility to improve the interplay of financial markets and the real economy. The pursuit of crisis-robust and sustainable financial markets through strengthened Financial Social Responsibility targets at creating lasting societal value for this generation and the following.

In democratic societies people can impact policy making and in theory can direct societal development. Hence, due to active public participation in the decision-making process, it might be easier to solve societal problems in democratic countries. Nonetheless, democracies are not free from social ills nor are nondemocracies. Though the benefits outweigh the costs of democratic changes, the costs should not be forgotten. Especially when we consider the impact of democracy and development on population health, the costs are significant though limitedly discussed.

The costs in societal health are especially visible among poverty-driven populations of democratic and nondemocratic countries. Poverty, in general, limits access to medical care and modern medical treatment. Poverty is also one of the most influential separators of society separating social strata in terms of their differentiated access to health-care facilities and modern medical treatments. Democracies by being more likely supported by international networks that help to open access to medical care, including international medical services, ease the struggle against poverty and unhealthy living conditions, but democracies are still unable to eliminate them.

Retailing has developed from independent merchants to multinational giants operating through global value chains, which has profoundly shaped consumption patterns in Western economies. This constant development currently consists of three global-scale change trajectories – climate change, online consumption, and technological development – that affect the retail industry. Based on this, this chapter concentrates on connecting the development paths of consumption and retailing and identifies various factors that affect the future of international retailing. The authors analyze the changes in institutional logics of international retailing by mapping the past, present, and future of the retail industry and consumption using content analysis of secondary data. The authors pay special attention to the effect of the current Covid-19 crisis on the future development of the retail industry. In the findings of this chapter, the authors recognize institutional logics changes in organizing the position of retailing as a connector of customers and producers, and the authors suggest blockchain to be an emerging new institutional order.