Search results

In this paper, we present a conceptual and terminological system – what we term the ‘Comprehensive Integrity Framework’ – capable of applying to both personal and institutional integrity, and to different levels of institutions (including sub-institutions and institutional complexes). We distinguish between three sorts of integrity: consistency-integrity (whether the agent’s acts accord with her claimed values); coherence-integrity (whether the agent’s character and internal constitution accord with her claimed values); and context-integrity (whether the agent’s environment facilitates her living up to her claimed values). We then employ this conceptual system to explore similarities, differences and overlaps between personal and institutional integrity, drawing in particular on moral philosophic work on personal integrity (on the one hand) and on ‘integrity systems’ and public administration approaches to institutional integrity (on the other).

The concept of the ‘social licence to operate’ (SLO) is contested on almost every imaginable dimension. Stakeholders may decry it as an industry-created ploy to ethics wash their operations and strategically manipulate community relations, while some industry figures despair over what they perceive as the arbitrary and even unilateral power that the weaponized concept of the social licence gifts to activists who seek to malign and disrupt law-abiding commercial operators. Others have lauded the social licence as a heaven-sent ethical tool, an effective lever for action that motivates leaders at profit-seeking enterprises to seriously consider ethical issues and prioritize community engagement. Still others will worry that a concept that can mean everything to everyone must ultimately mean nothing at all, and that the social licence is an empty and unhelpful buzzword. As the contributions to this Special Issue show, in different contexts – and sometimes even in the same context but for different stakeholders – all these views can be correct. From an ethical perspective, dangers, promises and irrelevance all attend the social licence.

Environmental sustainability has taken on increased importance in recent years with property companies. The purpose of this paper is to assess the strategies used by listed property trusts (LPTs) in Australia in delivering excellence and international best practice in environmental sustainability for commercial property.

Using content analysis, the annual reports, corporate responsibility and sustainability reports, and carbon disclosure reports for all LPTs in Australia are assessed. These public domain documents are used to identify the corporate strategies used by LPTs for implementing international best practice in environmental sustainability for the LPT commercial property portfolios.

The paper finds that Australian LPTs are seen to be strategically implementing a wide range of procedures regarding environmental sustainability. These contributions represent international best practice in environmental sustainability procedures, and include strategies at the corporate, portfolio and individual commercial property levels. These results confirm the strong leadership role of Australian LPTs in implementing international best practice in environmental sustainability in commercial property.

Previous research into sustainable commercial property has largely focused on the valuation implications with sustainability and the various sustainability rating tools. This paper rigorously assesses the strategic issues concerning implementing international best practice in environmentally sustainable commercial property; particularly highlighting the strong leadership role of LPTs in Australia in implementing these international best practices. Given the increasing significance of environmental sustainability and commercial property, this research enables more informed and practical investment decision making by property companies regarding the implementation of environmental sustainability procedures for their commercial property portfolios which are seen to be international best practice.

This paper aims to explore the implications of Aguinis and colleagues’ study, and in particular their claim that the inconsistency between chief executive officer (CEO) pay and CEO performance is reflective of a fundamental injustice. In doing so, the authors highlight issues regarding the meaning of fairness in the context of CEO pay, the extent to which CEOs can personally affect firm performance and the challenges in ascertaining whether CEOs are overpaid, underpaid or appropriately paid.

The authors use a conceptual approach, integrating research on executive compensation and managerial discretion to lend nuance to Aguinis and colleagues’ arguments and findings.

The main takeaway of the commentary is that CEO pay fairness is a complex and multifaceted matter that can be difficult to broadly characterize. The evidence offered by Aguinis and colleagues regarding power law distributions and the weak overlap between CEO pay and CEO performance is compelling, but questions about income inequality and pay fairness rarely lend themselves to straightforward answers. Some caution is thus warranted when evaluating Aguinis and colleagues’ conclusion that the US CEO labor market is pervasively unfair.

The authors urge scholars who build on the work of Aguinis and colleagues to pay heed to the challenges in reconciling the twin concepts of CEO pay and CEO performance.

Objetivo – Este comentario explora las implicaciones del estudio de Aguinis y colegas, y en particular su afirmación de que la inconsistencia entre la retribución del CEO y su rendimiento es el reflejo de una injusticia fundamental. Se señalan aspectos relativos al significado de justicia en el contexto de la retribución del CEO, a la influencia del CEO sobre el resultado empresarial, y a los retos de aseverar si la retribución de los CEOs es excesiva, insuficiente o justa.

Diseño/metodología/aproximación – Los autores utilizan una aproximación conceptual, integrando investigación en retribución y discrecionalidad de ejecutivos para matizar los argumentos y resultados de Agunis y colegas.

Resultados – La principal conclusión del comentario es que el grado de justicia del pago a CEOs es un tema difícil de caracterizar de forma global. La evidencia ofrecida por Aguinis y colegas en relación a la distribución de ley de poder y la poca superposición entre la retribución y el rendimiento del CEO es fascinante, pero las cuestiones sobre inequidad y justicia de los ingresos y la retribución raramente generan respuestas sencillas. Por tanto es necesaria cierta cautela a la hora de evaluar la conclusión de Aguinis y colegas de que el mercado laboral de CEOs en Estados Unidos es fundamentalmente injusto.

Originalidad/valor – Los autores urgen a los académicos a avanzar sobre el trabajo de Aguinis y colegas y prestar atención al reto de reconciliar los conceptos de retribución del CEO y resultados del CEO.

Objetivo – Este comentário explora as implicações do estudo de Aguinis et al., e em particular a sua afirmação de que a inconsistência entre a remuneração do CEO e seu desempenho é a reflexão de uma injustiça fundamental. Aspectos relacionados com o significado da justiça são apontados no contexto da remuneração do CEO, a influência do CEO sobre o resultado do negócio, e os desafios de afirmar se a remuneração dos CEOs é excessiva, insuficiente ou justa.

Design/metodologia/aproximação – Os autores utilizam uma abordagem conceitual, integrando a pesquisa na remuneração e discrição dos executivos para clarificar os argumentos e os resultados de Agunis et al.

Resultados – A principal conclusão do comentário é que o grau de equidade do pagamento aos CEOs é um assunto difícil de caracterizar de forma global. A evidência oferecida por Aguinis et al. em relação à distribuição da lei de poder e a pequena sobreposição entre a remuneração e o desempenho do CEO é fascinante, mas as questões de desigualdade e justiça de renda e retribuição raramente geram respostas simples. Portanto, é necessária alguma cautela ao avaliar a conclusão de Aguinis et al. que o mercado de trabalho dos CEOs nos Estados Unidos é fundamentalmente injusto.

Originalidade/valor – Os autores instam aos investigadores a avançar sobre o trabalho de Aguinis et al. e prestar atenção ao desafio de conciliar os conceitos de remuneração do CEO e os seus respectivos resultados.