Reminder: AoM Management History Call for Papers

The January 9th deadline for submissions to the 2018 AoM Annual Meeting is fast approaching. We invite you to submit papers or PDWs to the Management History Division. Details can be found here. Please email me if you have any questions.

Dan Wadhwani

Advertisements

Call for Papers, EBHA 2018 Conference

The firm and the sea: chains, flows and connections

Call for Papers, EBHA 2018 Conference Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona – Italy September 6-8, 2018

The sea – whether considered as open ocean or as a mass of water bordered by land masses – is an enormous economic resource for mankind. Not only is it the principal way of transportation for goods and humans but it’s also a formidable source of food. Since we want to link the sea with the business unit (the firm, as well as other organizational units like clusters, networks and global value chains) the focus of the next EBHA conference will be on two units of analysis that are both extremely relevant for the sea as well as economic resources – ships and harbors.

In order to perform its function, the ship (a means for transporting goods and people) is run in a very hierarchical way, more than what occurs with a factory or a retail company (two good comparison points). Just as with a factory or retailer, ships embody economic goals to be achieved by workers, managers, and – this is the difference – CEOs whose decisions cannot be challenged given that the cargo and (more importantly) the life of its “inhabitants” can be at stake.

Rarely does the ship stand on its own as a business unit (unless we talk of an activity like fishing which is certainly important). It’s part of a group that refers to a shipowner acting in a very complicated world where the ups and downs of charters and continuous struggles with government regulations and policies render decisions delicate and complex.

The ship is the nexus of a tremendous amount of activity – just consider the shipyards, metallurgic factories, plants producing precision equipment, and those dedicated to heavy machinery. And think of other sectors like the extraction of raw materials and agricultural products that could have a real global circulation in relation to the capacity of the maritime vehicle.

Then there are associated service sectors such as insurance and banking activities focused on navigation (often with government support). Credit for navigation is a landmark of the modern economy with both successes as well as bankruptcies. Also worthy of further study is the role that passenger ships have played in the social and economic development of many nations. From the large ships of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that plied the Atlantic Ocean transporting passengers between the Americas and Europe to the postwar ocean liners that offered a glamorous way to travel to new destinations, ships helped make the tourism industry grow.

And we can’t close our eyes to some of the unlawful activities connected with the world of navigation including the illegal transportation of human beings, prohibited goods, and money laundering. Even today there are occasional episodes of piracy, something that we thought limited to history books and old novels.

The second actor we consider is strictly related to the first one – ports, an unavoidable reference point for ships that make them their destination for the goods and passengers on board. It’s in the port that a ship can stock materials needed when at sea and eventually undergo repairs before embarking on a new journey. We see the port as an

1

entrepreneur (formed by stakeholders with both common and divergent goals) which should be analyzed in an historical perspective. First are the many aspects of the governance of the port: who’s in charge? Is it a function of the State or the military? Is it a managerially run port authority that, even if designated by State powers, has relative autonomy in its actions? Are there private operators who handle the terminals? How does the type of governance impact a port’s efficiency? Second, we have to single out the crowd of operators in a port: maritime agents, stevedores, people who maneuver the cranes, pilots, dock workers. Several of these activities are strictly regulated, at times resulting in strong conflicts between various actors in the port.

The relationship between a port and the areas around it, the presence of appropriate infrastructures, and the many activities making up the field of logistics – all are tremendously important for the port as a kind of entrepreneur. Given their role of stimulating the trade of goods, raw materials and energy sources, the port becomes a key actor of the development of productive areas. Ports can strengthen or even launch the industrial take-off of the territories they supply. Moreover, ports are historically linked to global cities, nodes in a complex network of trade, but also of political international alliances, which emerged progressively in the phases of globalization (from Singapore to Hong Kong and from San Francisco to Yokohama, for example).

Even today seas and their ports remain a theater in which important geo-political and geo-economic stances take place; their relevance for business history can’t be underestimated. From the building or restructuring of infrastructures that are pillars of the first wave of globalization (the Suez and Panama Canals, for example) to new opportunities brought about by the latest waves of globalization, the sea continues to be an essential, physical component of the complex web of trade relations which allow the existence of global value chains that take advantage of its unique means of connection and communication.

Possible topics include (but are not limited to):

  • Connections, links and networks in waves of globalization and de-globalization
  • Characteristics and dynamics of the shipping and logistics industries
  • The long run transformation of shipbuilding and related industries
  • The fishing industry
  • The history of insurance and banking activities related to navigation
  • Technological developments and their impact on ships and ports
  • The variety and features of illegal activities connected to sea transport
  • Features and management of companies connected with the world of navigation
  • Private and public entrepreneurship in sectors related to sea transportation
  • Workers and industrial relations in maritime industries
  • The governance of ports and their transformation over time
  • Relations of cooperation/competition among maritime companies and ports
  • The history and development of global value chains and networks

Last, but not least, ports, ships, and even the sea are highly sensitive to technological change and the resulting emergence of competitive and alternative infrastructures (from railways and motorways to airlines and large airport hubs).

2

  • The role played by firms and entrepreneurs in shaping the development of maritime exchanges of goods, services, and information, or in integrating economies and cultures
  • Seas, ports and climate change
  • Dynamics and impact of governmental policies and regulations on navigation
  • The political economy of connections and links
  • The impact of ports on their surrounding territory and vice versa
  • The geography and features of global cities and their transformation
  • The role of the sea in shaping the emergence and consolidation of different kinds of

    capitalism

  • Migrations flows across the sea
  • Passenger travel and the growth of tourism
  • International investments in the maritime industries
  • The relationships among port cities seen as nodes of a global network where

    dimensions and scope change over time

    The organizers expect to receive proposals related to some of the suggestions outlined above. But consideration will also be given to papers covering other aspects of the broader conference title.

    In the event of a business history topic without ties to the sea or the firm, consideration will be given, provided that the proposal demonstrates originality and that this forum could be a useful place for further reflection.

    We also invite other formats, such as panels and roundtables, poster sessions for Ph.D. students, workshops aiming to start collaborative projects, and “toolkit sessions”. Proposals should be directed to the paper committee as well.

    Requirements for proposals

    The submission system consists of a template that specifically asks for

    (1) Author information: affiliation, short CV, authored publications related to the paper proposal

    (2) An abstract of no more than 800 words

    (3) Additional information important to the program committee: clear statement of the research question (not more than 150 words), brief information on the theoretical/conceptual framework used, major research areas to which the paper relates

    (4) Joint papers need a responsible applicant who will be at the conference if the proposal is accepted.

    Please have this information ready to enter into the submission system via copy and paste.

    Requirements for panel proposals and roundtables

    The criteria for single paper proposals also apply to session and roundtables proposals. There is, however, a specific template for session proposals.

3

Sessions can be ninety minutes long (usually three papers) or two hours in order to accommodate more papers. A successful panel/roundtable leaves significant time for the audience to raise questions, to comment and to generally discuss the panel’s theme.

A session proposal should not be made up of participants exclusively from one country. The program committee retains the right to integrate papers into sessions as they see fit.

Please note that paper, session/panel proposals must be submitted via the congress website (use this link http://ebha.org/public/C9 to upload proposals). See the Conference Website (http://ebha18.univpm.it) for further details.

The deadline is Monday, January 15, 2018.

If you have any questions please contact Veronica Binda or Roberto Giulianelli at:

scientific.ebha18@univpm.it

Academic Entrepreneurship in Historical Perspective

Over the last couple of years, an interdisciplinary group of historians of science and technology and business historians have been collaborating on a project on “academic entrepreneurship” that has resulted in the publication of two special issues. Links to the  introductions to those special issues and a list of the articles can be found below.

MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY (V 12, no. 3, 2017)

R. Daniel Wadhwani, University of the Pacific
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins
Anna Guagnini. University of Bologna
Ellan Spero, MIT
Thomas Brandt, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Giovanni Favero,  Universita Venezia
Cyrus C.M. Mody, Maastricht University
HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY (V 33, no. 1, 2017)
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins
Gabriel Galvez-Behar, University of Lille
Anna Guagnini. University of Bologna

Commercializing academic knowledge and reputation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: photography and beyond
Joris Mercelis, Johns Hopkins

Wolfgang Konig, German Academy of Science and Technology
Anna Guagnini, University of Bologna
Shaul Katzir, Tel Aviv University
Brian Dick, Chemical History Foundation
Mark Jones, Tech History Works

CFP: Making Managers

Management & Organizational History

Special Issue: Making Managers Guest Editors

Rolv Petter Amdam, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway (rolv.p.amdam@bi.no)

Matthias Kipping, Schulich School of Business, Toronto, Canada (mkipping@schulich.york.ca)

Jacqueline McGlade, College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman (jmcglade@squ.edu.om)

Call for papers

This special issue explores the dynamics, processes, and actors involved in making managers over time in a variety of contexts. The issue intends to fill an important gap in the current literature on the history of management education, which has largely been centered on organizational development narratives, i.e. the rise of business schools, the global spread of the American model, business-based academic disciplines, etc. (see, for examples, the Selected References below).

We therefore invite papers that to chronicle the actual preparation of managers in all types, venues and forms; address questions and perspectives that have not been addressed; and cover geographical areas or industries and activities that are not in focus in the extant literature. We seek contributions that consider a variety of dimensions and aspects involved with making managers, both in imagined and real terms. We welcome in particular contributions that address one or several of the following broad domains: (i) organizational settings, such as universities, companies, business associations, governments, public administrations and the military etc.; (ii) programs and their scope, including undergraduate and graduate degrees, executive education, managerial leadership programs, corporate training, online and self-help courses etc.; (iii) cultural and social processes, contributing, among others, to organizational integration, habitus building and elite formation; (iv) global differences, with a particular focus on non-Western contexts.

Possible (though not exclusive) topics

• The role of management education and training in imparting and inculcating shared terminology and language, norms and behavior;

  • The shifting weights of various academic disciplines in the preparation of managers as well as the changing importance of experiential learning;
  • The development of non-traditional manager preparation programs, including alternative contents and new ways of delivery;
  • The efforts by other actors to complement or substitute for extant university- based management degree programs;
  • The attempts by the various management education or training providers to bridge perceived gaps between business knowledge mastery, i.e. “know about” and impactful managerial leadership, i.e. “know-how.”
  • The influence of different national, cultural and institutional contexts on the formal or informal making of managers;
  • The emergence of a cadre of global managers, tied (or not) to multinational enterprises and related phenomena, including offshoring;
  • The homogenizing effects due to dominant models, accreditation or rankings, and how these have been resisted, subverted or adapted;
  • The ways in which education and training contributed (or not) to the expansion and professionalization of management.

    Selected References

    Amdam, R.P. (2008). “Business Education,” in G. Jones and J. Zeitlin, eds., The Oxford Handbook in Business History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Engwall, L., M. Kipping, and B. Üsdiken (2016). Defining Management: Business Schools, Consultants, Media. New York: Routledge.

    Gourvish, T. R. and Tiratsoo, N., eds. (1998). Missionaries and Managers: American Influences on European Management Education, 1945-60. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    McGlade, J. (1998). “The big push: the export of American business education to Western Europe after World War II,” in V. Zamagni and L. Engwall, eds., Management education in a historical perspective. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers Not MBAs: A Hard Look at the Soft Practice of Managing and Management Development. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Submission Process and Deadline

Authors wanting to discuss their ideas or draft papers are encouraged to contact the special issue editors. When writing the manuscript, please make sure to follow the journal’s style guidelines: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rmor20&page =instructions#.U2-Oqi_6Tp0. Completed manuscripts should be submitted online at: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/moh, mentioning the special issue. The deadline for submissions is 31 March 2018.

Each submission will initially be reviewed by the guest editors to determine its suitability for the special issue. We might hold a paper development workshop for authors whose manuscripts pass this original screening. Before final acceptance papers will also be double-blind reviewed. Publication of the special issue is planned for the second half of 2019.

About the Editors

Rolv Petter Amdam is Professor of Business History at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. He has published widely on the international development of management education, and edited Management Education and Competitiveness: Europe, the US and Japan (1996), and co-edited with R. Kvålshaugen and E. Larsen, Inside the Business School: The Content of European Business Education (2003)

Matthias Kipping is Professor of Policy and Richard E. Waugh Chair in Business History at the Schulich School of Business, York University in Toronto, Canada. He has published extensively on the international dissemination of management knowledge, and in particular the role of consultants and business schools. He has co-edited, with T. Clark, the Oxford Handbook of Management Consulting (2012) and co-authored, with L. Engwall and B. Üsdiken, Defining Management (2016).

Jacqueline McGlade is Associate Professor at the College of Economics and Political Science, Sultan Qaboos University in Muscat, Oman. She has pioneered some of the early research on the US efforts to spread their models of management education globally – a topic she is continuing to explore, and is currently working on issues of international political economy and trade development, including, most recently, research on the role of SMEs in the Gulf region.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research: A Bibliography

In preparation for the development workshops devoted to methods (see Clio Palooza above) we have created a preliminary bibliography of references of papers, chapters, and books devoted to historical methods in management and organizational research. If you’ve got suggested additions to the list please let us know by coming to one of the sessions or by commenting on this post.

Historical Methods in Management and Organizational Research:
A Bibliography
August 2017

Coraiola, D.M., Foster, W.M. and Suddaby, R., 2015. Varieties of history in organization studies. The Routledge companion to management and organizational history, pp.206-221.

Decker, S., 2013. The silence of the archives: Business history, post-colonialism and archival ethnography. Management & Organizational History8(2), pp.155-173.

Decker, S., 2015. Mothership reconnection. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.222.

Durepos, G. and Mills, A.J., 2012. Actor-network theory, ANTi-history and critical organizational historiography. Organization19(6), pp.703-721.

Forbes, Daniel P., and David A. Kirsch. “The study of emerging industries: Recognizing and responding to some central problems.” Journal of Business Venturing 26, no. 5 (2011): 589-602.

Godfrey, P.C., Hassard, J., O’Connor, E.S., Rowlinson, M. and Ruef, M., 2016. What is organizational history? Toward a creative synthesis of history and organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.590-608.

Heller, M. (20016). ‘Foucault, Discourse and the Birth of Public Relations’, Enterprise & Society, 17(3): 651-677.

Harvey, C. and Press, J., 1996. Databases in historical research: Theory, methods and applications. London: Macmillan.

Kirsch, D., Moeen, M. and Wadhwani, R.D., 2014. Historicism and industry emergence: industry knowledge from pre-emergence to stylized fact. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods217.

Kipping, M., Wadhwani, R.D. and Bucheli, M., 2014. Analyzing and interpreting historical sources: A basic methodology. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.305-329.

Lipartito, K., 2014. Historical sources and data. Organizations in time: History, theory, methods, pp.284-304.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2016. Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.609-632.

Maclean, M., Harvey, C. and Clegg, S.R., 2017. Organization Theory in Business and Management History: Present Status and Future Prospects. Business History Review91(4), forthcoming.

Murmann, J. P. (2010). “Constructing Relational Databases to Study Life Histories on Your PC or Mac.” Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 43(3): 109 – 123.

Pfefferman, T., 2016. Reassembling the archives: business history knowledge production from an actor-network perspective. Management & Organizational History11(4), pp.380-398.

Rowlinson, M., Hassard, J. and Decker, S., 2014. Research strategies for organizational history: A dialogue between historical theory and organization theory. Academy of Management Review39(3), pp.250-274.

Stutz, C. and Sachs, S., 2016. Facing the Normative Challenges: The Potential of Reflexive Historical Research. Business & Society, p.0007650316681989.

Taylor, S., 2015. Critical hermeneutics for critical organizational history. The Routledge Companion to Management and Organizational History, p.143.

Vaara, E. and Lamberg, J.A., 2016. Taking historical embeddedness seriously: Three historical approaches to advance strategy process and practice research. Academy of Management Review41(4), pp.633-657.

Taylor, S., Bell, E. and Cooke, B., 2009. Business history and the historiographical operation. Management & Organizational History4(2), pp.151-166.

Wadhwani, R.D., 2016. Historical Methods for Contextualizing Entrepreneurship Research. In A Research Agenda for Entrepreneurship and Context. Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

Wadhwani, R.D. and Decker, S. 2017. “Clio’s Toolkit: The Practice of Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” (with Stephanie Decker) In Sanjay Jain and Raza Mir (eds.) Routledge Companion to Qualitative Research in Organization Studies New York: Taylor and Francis, pp. 113-127.

JoAnne Yates, “Understanding Historical Methods in Organization Studies,” in Marcelo Bucheli and R. Daniel Wadhwani, eds., Organizations in Time: History, Theory, Methods (Oxford: Oxford University Press: 2013), pp. 265-283.

JoAnne Yates, “Time, History, and Materiality,” in Materiality and Time: Historical Perspectives on Organizations, Artefacts and Practices, ed. Francois-Xavier de Vaujany, Nathalie Mitev, Pierre Laniray, Emmanuelle Vaast (London: Palgrave McMillan: 2014), pp. 17-33.

 

Clio Palooza at Academy of Management

This year, the Paper Development Workshops sponsored by the Management History Division at the Academy of Management will feature a series of sessions on historical methods. If you are attending the AoM, please consider joining us. And please let others who may be interested know about these sessions. A listing of sessions, presenters, and locations can be found below.

Historical Methods for Management and Organizational Research

Aug 4, 12:15-2:45pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall E

Coordinator: Stephanie DeckerAston Business School

Coordinator: Diego CoraiolaU. of Alberta

Participant: William FosterU. of Alberta

Participant: JoAnne YatesMIT Sloan School of Management

Participant: Matthias KippingSchulich School of Bus, York U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Presenter: Christina LubinskiCopenhagen Business School

 

Some Words, A Story, Some Methods, and a Weapons Platform

Aug 4, 12:15pm-2:15pm, Hyatt Embassy Hall G

Coordinator: Andrew CardowMassey U.

Participant: Mie AugierNaval Postgraduate School

Participant: Maciej WorkiewiczESSEC Business School

Participant: M J PrietulaEmory U.

 

Frontiers of Digital History: Methods and Tools

Aug 4, 2:00pm – 4:00pm, Hyatt Hanover Hall E

Presenter: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Organizer: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: Charles Edward HarveyNewcastle U.

Presenter: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Presenter: Mairi MacleanU. of Bath

Presenter: Johann Peter MurmannU. of New South Wales

Organizer: Mirko ErnkvistRatio Institute

Moderator: Robin GustafssonAalto U.

Presenter: David A. KirschU. of Maryland

 

The Linguistic Turn in Management and Organizational History

August 5, 12:30pm-2pm. Hyatt, Embassy Hall A

Participant: Michael HellerBrunel U.

Participant: Michael RowlinsonU. of Exeter

Participant: Ulf ThoeneU. de La Sabana

Participant: Ellen KorsagerCopenhagen Business School

Participant: Anders SorensenCopenhagen Business School

 

Using Accounting Records for Management History

August 5, 2:45-pm-4:15pm Hyatt, Harris

Organizer: James M. WilsonU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Kirsten KininmonthU. of Glasgow

Presenter: Sam McKinstryU. of the West of Scotland

 

 

 

Call for Papers: Corporate Reputation

CALL FOR PAPERS
Journal of Business Ethics
Special Issue theme: “Linking Corporate Reputation and Accountability: Antecedents, Mechanisms, Paradoxes, and Outcomes”

Deadline: January 1, 2018

Guest Editors:
Craig E. Carroll, New York University, craig.carroll@nyu.edu
Rowena Olegario, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, rowena.olegario@sbs.ox.ac.uk

Accountability is a concept about being answerable to someone for something that matters. It requires the accountor to be capable of being observed, monitored, and evaluated through its willingness to provide material information and provides clear consequences for failure. Scholars have investigated the roles of corporate governance, CSR reporting, auditors, and credit rating agencies, in upholding – or failing to uphold – corporate accountability (Bendell, 2005; Brennan & Solomon, 2008; Coffee, 2002; Gray, et. al., 1997; Newell, 2005; Partnoy, 1999; Utting, 2008; Valor, 2005). Yet even with these recent studies, corporate accountability remains under-researched and under-theorized.

Many studies of corporate reputation, as well as business folk-wisdom, assume that reputation is a mechanism for keeping companies honest, a crucial attribute of accountability. As business magnate Warren Buffet famously observed: “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Implicit in Buffett’s formulation is the notion that the threat of losing a good reputation always constrains corporate opportunism. Yet recent and classic examples illustrate that even prominent public firms, which stand to lose the most from a tarnished reputation, engage in dishonest behavior for the sake of short-term benefits. At the same time, there are multiple cases of companies that have engaged in malfeasance without suffering lasting reputational harm. In 2017, for example, Volkswagen reported healthy sales despite having been subjected to fines and negative media scrutiny of its emissions cheating. Given that there are so many exceptions to the ‘Buffett rule,’ it is imperative to ask what role reputation plays in holding companies to account, provided that all organizations even care about their reputations in the first place.

We believe that this is an optimal moment to explicitly link the constructs of accountability and corporate reputation. In the past, scholars have equated accountability with being responsible (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013) or viewed accountability as an outcome of disclosing CSR investment (Brown-Liburd, Cohen, Zamora (in press). Only a few studies have specifically investigated how reputation constrains corporate wrongdoing (Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2016; Wright, 2016; Sampath, Gardberg, Rahman, 2016; He, Pittman, and Rui, 2016; Hardeck and Hertl, 2014; Ma and Parks, 2012; Reuber and Fischer, 2010; Frances-Gomez and del Rio, 2008; Sacconi, 2007). Accountability, CSR, and corporate reputation are linked– many corporations engage in CSR precisely because they hope to burnish their reputations–but there is growing skepticism about the authenticity, effectiveness, and sufficiency of CSR disclosure and engagement for holding organizations accountable.

Our proposal then is to begin theorizing new ways that reputation can be linked with accountability. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers from a wide range of social science and humanities traditions, particularly on the following questions and approaches:

1. What are the links between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics?

The special issue calls for papers to reflect upon the nature, full extent, and variety of configurations that can exist between reputation and accountability.

  • Which theoretical lenses explain the opportunities, risks, paradoxes, successes, and failures of reputation mechanisms?
  • How do definitions, goals, and criteria for corporate accountability differ for people on Main Street vs. Wall Street, and how do these different understandings affect the practice and efficacy of reputation mechanism?
  • To what extent are favorable perceptions of an organization’s social, financial, and environmental performance an outcome of, a precursor of, a substitute for, or a means to avoid, corporate accountability? Can transparency be used to avoid accountability?
  • What are the ethical issues at play when excellent performance in one sphere (for example, offering a highly popular consumer product) moderates, distracts, or compensates from poor reputations in other spheres (such as a corporation’s contributions to environmental degradation)?

2. What are the unexplored, adverse, unanticipated and paradoxical relationships between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics? What are the impacts upon performance of these different relationships?

The special issue seeks papers that look ahead at how instituting accountability mechanisms creates new organization-society dynamics.

  • Is there/will there be such a thing as too much accountability? If so, how does this change our understanding of what constitutes ethical practices?
  • What is the relationship between ‘facts,’ reputation, and accountability? How will recent developments in online platforms and social media change those dynamics in the business sphere?
  • How does organizational performance change the relationship between reputation and accountability? How does accountability change the relationship between reputation and organizational performance?
  • What are the consequences for personal, organizational, and societal health?

References
Bendell, J. (2005). In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility. Development in Practice 15 (3-4): 362-374. doi: 10.1080/09614520500075813

Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (7): 885-906. doi:10.1108/09513570810907401

Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (in press) CSR Disclosure Items Used as Fairness Heuristics in the Investment Decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3

Buffett, M. & Clark, D. (2006). The Tao of Warren Buffett: Warren Buffett’s Words of Wisdom.

Coffee, J.C. (2002). Understanding Enron: ‘It’s About the Gatekeepers, Stupid.’ The Business Lawyer 57 (4): 1403-1420. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40688097.

Frances-Gomez, P. & del Rio, A. (2008). Stakeholder’s Preference and Rational Compliance: A Comment on Sacconi’s ‘CSR as a Model for Extended Corporate Governance II: Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82(1) 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9562-6

Gray, R., Day, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the Praxis of Social Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325-364. doi:10.1108/09513579710178106

Hardeck, I., & Hertl, R. (2014). Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1843-7.

He, X., Pittman, J., & Rui, O. (2016). Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 702-722. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2770-6

Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. (in press). The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-016-3164-0

Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2012). Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 161-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6.

Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda. International Affairs 81 (3): 541-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

Partnoy, F. (1999). The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies. Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (3): 619-714.

Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations Behaving Badly: When Are Discreditable Actions Likely to Damage Organizational Reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 39-50. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0180-3.

Sacconi, L. (2007). A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (II): Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1): 77-96. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8

Sampath, V. S., Gardberg, N. A., & Rahman, N. (in press). Corporate Reputation’s Invisible Hand: Bribery, Rational Choice, and Market Penalties. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3242-3

Utting, P. (2008). The Struggle for Corporate Accountability. Development and Change 39: 959-975. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00523.x

Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110 (2): 191-212. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00011.x

Wright, C. F. (2016). Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2552-1

Process for submitting papers
Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc, should be directed to the guest editors of the special issue: Craig Carroll or Rowena Olegario.

Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be approximately 8,000 words in length. Papers should employ standard English and provide authors’ names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses on the front page. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For more information see: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551.

Submission to the special issue– by January 1, 2018 – is required through Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/busi/. Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE, Linking Corporate Reputation + Accountability.

Proposed Schedule
The deadline for the first completed draft is January 1, 2018 followed by a peer-review process until April, 4, 2018. The deadline for the second draft is December 4, 2018. The deadline for the whole volume will be March 1, 2019.

About Journal of Business Ethics
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. The Journal’s impact factor is 1.837 (2015). This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank.

Craig Carroll, Ph.D.
Adjunct Professor
New York University
239 Greene Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10003
Office: (917) 410-0627
Mobile: (919) 360-9188
craig.carroll@nyu.edu
W: http://amazon.com/author/craigecarroll
L: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigecarroll
For appointments, http://calendly.com/craigecarroll

New Book: The Emergence of Routines (Raff and Scranton)

Business historians Dan Raff and Phil Scranton have published an interesting new edited collection that explores the intersection of business history, business strategy, and entrepreneurship. Published by OUP, The Emergence of Routines includes a series of historical case studies examining the origins of organizational order in firms. The book includes a conceptual introduction and an intriguingly titled concluding chapter on “learning from history” that should be of interest to readers of this blog.

From the OUP Site’s Description:

This book is a collection of essays about the emergence of routines and, more generally, about getting things organized in firms and in industries in early stages and in transition.

These are subjects of the greatest interest to students of entrepreneurship and organizations, as well as to business historians, but the academic literature is thin. The chronological settings of the book’s eleven substantive chapters are historical, reaching as far back as the late 1800s right up to the 1990s, but the issues they raise are evergreen and the historical perspective is exploited to advantage.

The chapters are organized in three broad groups: examining the emergence of order and routines in initiatives, studying the same subject in ongoing operations, and a third focusing specifically on the phenomena of transition. The topics range from the Book-of-the-Month Club to industrial research at Alcoa, from the evolution of procurement and coordination to project-based industries such as bridge- and dam-building and the governance of defence contracting, and from the development of project performance appraisal at the World Bank to the way the global automobile industry collectively redesigned the internal combustion engine to deal with after the advent of environmental regulation. The chapters are vivid and thought-provoking in themselves and, for pedagogical purposes, offer excellent jumping-off points for discussion of relevant experiences and cognate academic literature.

Historical Perspectives on Org Studies: The End of an Era

IMG_0415-2

The final meeting of Standing Working Group 8 (Historical Perspectives on Org Studies) took place at the European Group for Organization Studies Meeting in Naples, Italy this past week. SWG 8 was established by Lars Engwall, Matthias Kipping, and Behlul Usdiken six years ago and has served as an important institutional platform for the discussion and development of work related to historical approaches to management and organizational research over that time. Many of the articles, chapters, and books that have been produced in the last few years were born out of the working group. Though, by EGOS rules, the standing working group has a limited term, the bigger project on the development of historical approaches to organizational research will continue next year at the EGOS meeting in Copenhagen, thanks two new sub themes related to history and organization studies. These are Subtheme 43 (Theorizing the Past, Present, and Future of Organization Theory) and Subtheme 44 (Rethinking History, Rethinking Business Schools).

PhD Courses in Historical Approaches to Business and Management

Kyoto PhD Course

One of the important challenges that Management and Organizational History must face is cultivating the next generation of scholars. There are relatively few established PhD courses that train students in business and management history, and little attention to what constitutes a foundational curriculum in the field.

Last week, I had a chance to test out some ideas for a curriculum when I co-taught a one-week PhD course at Kyoto University with Professor Takafumi Kurosawa. The students included early and mid-stage PhD students from 5 countries. We took a basic introductory orientation to the field. The topics covered: 1. Historiography, 2. Advantages of Historical Conceptualization, 3. Historical Research Processes and Methods, 4. Applications.

Some basic thoughts occurred to us as we taught that I think provide lessons for such efforts in the future. 1. Business, Economic, and Management History tends to engage in relatively little historiographical reflection about the development of historical approaches, and yet it’s crucial to not only the intellectual coherence but also socialization into the field. 2. We tend to place insufficient attention to the historical research process, and particular to the question of why one turns to history at all. But a discussion of the historical research process, and a comparison to research process in other social sciences, is incredibly helpful to students in comprehending and communicating how they are going about their work. 3. Specific examples are worth their weight in gold.

We’d love to hear the experiences of others, and engage in a discussion of how to train PhD students. So, when you get a chance, share your thoughts!