Koyama on Counterfactual History

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

Mark Koyama, an economic historian at George Mason University, has published an excellent piece on counterfactual history. He begins by pointing out that many history-department historians dislike counterfactual history and that this sentiment is particularly pronounced among historians who subscribe to Marxism or other teleological worldviews. Koyama points out that counterfactual thinking is an integral part of causal analysis in academic research, and indeed ordinary life.  He draws on David Hume’s observation that a counterfactual is implicit whenever we use the word “cause” or one of its synonyms. He points out that many historians who are against extended counterfactual analysis nevertheless engage in implicit counterfactual analysis of varying levels of quality. To provide an example of amateurish counterfactual analysis, Koyama mention Ed Baptist’s controversial book The Half Has Never Been Told, which argues that almost 50% of US GDP in 1836 was due to slavery. (For more…

View original post 316 more words


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.


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

BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History

The BHC Doctoral Colloquium in Business History will be held once again in conjunction with the 2018 BHC annual meeting. This prestigious workshop, funded by Cambridge University Press, will take place in Baltimore on Wednesday April 4th and Thursday April 5th. Typically limited to ten students, the colloquium is open to doctoral candidates who are pursuing dissertation research within the broad field of business history, from any relevant discipline (e.g., from economic sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, or management, as well as history). Most participants are in year 3 or 4 or their degree program, though in some instances applicants at a later stage make a compelling case that their thesis research has evolved in ways that have led them to see the value of an intensive engagement with business history.

Topics (see link for past examples) may range from the early modern era to the present, and explore societies across the globe. Participants work intensively with a distinguished group of BHC-affiliated scholars (including the incoming BHC president), discussing dissertation proposals, relevant literatures and research strategies, and career trajectories.

Applications are due by 15 November 2017 via email to BHC@Hagley.org and should include: a statement of interest; CV; preliminary or final dissertation prospectus (10-15 pages); and a letter of support from your dissertation supervisor (or prospective supervisor). All participants receive a stipend that partially defrays travel costs to the annual meeting. Applicants will receive notification of the selection committee’s decisions by 20 December 2017.

Questions about the colloquium should be sent to its director, Duke Professor of History Edward Balleisen, eballeis@duke.edu, and/or this year’s graduate student liaison, Alexi Garrett, asg4c@virginia.edu (who participated last year).

EBHA Summer School 2017 – Report

September saw the 9th edition of the European Business History Association’s biannual doctoral summer school, held in the Italian city of Ancona. This year I was fortunate to be attending myself and, having heard the endorsements of previous alumni, was looking forward to a week of stimulating content, some late summer sun, and of course the famous food of the Marche region. The summer school, in its third year in Ancona, was being hosted by the Università Politecnica delle Marche, whose picturesque Economics department was to be our home for the week.

Facoltà di Economia, Ancona

Along with their annual congress, the school constitutes the EBHA’s main effort in their aim to develop the academic discipline of business history. The school seeks to attract talented junior historians and social scientists to the broad scope of business history, encouraging further study of the history of organizations, markets and the people impacted by them. The school, fundamentally international in nature, has developed a reputation for facilitating long lasting friendships within the field and providing a safe, friendly, but ultimately rigorous atmosphere within which to promote and engage with doctoral research.

After introductions, the school was opened by Andrea Schneider, who lead a session on heritage and storytelling through the lens of German corporate history. In dealing with these concepts, we discussed their diverse uses and features, not only amongst researchers but also by companies themselves. We finished by deliberating some of the ongoing challenges and opportunities of business historic research, particularly in relation to digitalization and the changing nature of sources. We then had a thought-provoking presentation from Grietjie Verhoef on business history within Africa, discussing the challenges of the Chandlerian perspective within the context of Africa, as well as the continent’s distinct development trajectory and the factors that impact upon it. We finished by identifying some key aspects of business in Africa, along with possible research agendas for the future.

Harold James initiated proceedings on the second day with a lecture on the nature of capitalism. Here, he engaged in a stimulating analysis of the dominant perspectives of capitalism, as well as a number of assumptions and institutions we’ve come to take for granted. After lunch, Abe de Jong ran a session on business history methods, which developed on our own uses of business history to show the diverse schema of motivations and contexts within which it’s pursued. Through a process of categorizing personal statements about our work, Abe argued that at least five distinct types of business history research existed within the school’s cohort alone! Following this, the faculty ran an informative and lively round table on publishing, which covered the various roles, processes and traditions that exist within the journal environment.

The third day was opened with a session on business history and management research, led by Ludovic Cailluet. Here, the focus was on understanding the differences between the mainstream of management research and that of business history, covering the expectations, characteristics, and preferences of both. Jeffrey Fear’s afternoon session on the integration of history and business in taught programmes provided a wider platform of discussing the teaching aspect of academic careers. He highlighted the value that can be gained by using historical cases within the management school curriculum, as well as concepts of a more economic or commercial nature within the history department. Andrea Colli finished the afternoon with a talk on multimedia case studies. Although widely inspiring, the audience was particularly impressed with his example of an in-house video production for a case study of Venice as a commercial center. Dinners were always a fine affair, but this evening was particularly special.  Venturing out of Ancona en masse, we traveled up the hillside overlooking the Adriatic to a secluded and scenic restaurant, where a excellent meal was had by all.

Deviating from the chronology briefly, it would be remiss of me not to mention the student presentations, which formed much of the week’s schedule. I was personally very impressed, not only by the presentations themselves, but also the engaging discussions which consistently followed them. The reach and impact of business history is something that was been made especially clear to me over the week, and it was interesting to talk with students and faculty from outside the business school environment. Amongst the topics discussed: the history of the South African Stock Exchange, 20th Century Dutch ship building, and the Berlin inter-war fashion industry. This, however, notes just a few of the areas we covered, not to mention the diverse approaches to business history used in researching them. Talking to me after to summer school, EBHA president Ludovic Cailluet, said “ I really enjoyed the diversity of perspectives and the richness of research being developed by these PhD students as much as the informality of the interactions.”

The final day started with a session from Marten Boon about geography and business history. Here, Marten drew on Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis and the Chicago case to highlight the interrelationship between industrial clusters and the rural ‘nature’ we tend to juxtapose it with. He then provided a summary of his own work on the Rhine region’s oil infrastructure development, highlighting both his fascinating research and the innovative resources drawn upon in conducting it. On the final afternoon, we headed across town to the Biblioteca Amatori, where Franco Amatori gave an impactful talk on the nature of a history of capitalism. Following this, the students and faculty were treated to a reception at the Biblioteca to mark the culmination of the school’s 9th iteration. The discussions continued well into the evening, and eventually spilled out into the city’s Piazza del Plebiscito, where a convivial time was had discussing life, research, and much in-between.

Students and Faculty at Biblioteca Amatori

On behalf of all the students, I would like to thank the EBHA, the faculty, and the organizing team (particularly Veronica Binda and Roberto Giulianelli) for their investment in making this school such a success. Not only was it an incredibly valuable experience, but a hugely enjoyable one too. I am confident many friendships have been forged and that we, the students, will take much from the week into our research and wider careers.

NB – The EBHA Facebook page has a number of posts relating to the school along with photographs of the week’s events. https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanBusinessHistoryAssociation/

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.

Populism is Back! Why has this happened and why does it matter?

Reblogged from NEP-His:

The NEP-HIS Blog

Populism and the Economics of Globalization

By Dani Rodrik (Harvard University)

Abstract: Populism may seem like it has come out of nowhere, but it has been on the rise for a while. I argue that economic history and economic theory both provide ample grounds for anticipating that advanced stages of economic globalization would produce a political backlash. While the backlash may have been predictable, the specific form it took was less so. I distinguish between left-wing and right-wing variants of populism, which differ with respect to the societal cleavages that populist politicians highlight. The first has been predominant in Latin America, and the second in Europe. I argue that these different reactions are related to the relative salience of different types of globalization shocks.

URL: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:12119

Distributed by NEP-HIS on: 2017-07-09

Review by Sergio Castellanos-Gamboa (Bangor University)


Populism has been at the front of news headlines for a while…

View original post 1,242 more words

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

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?

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
W: http://amazon.com/author/craigecarroll
L: http://www.linkedin.com/in/craigecarroll
For appointments, http://calendly.com/craigecarroll

Moshik Temkin’s Assertions about the Limits of Analogical-Historical Reasoning

Reblogged from The Past Speaks:

The Past Speaks

Moshik Temkin is an associate professor of history and public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He recently published a piece in the New York Times on the limits of analogical historical reasoning.  He observes that the chaotic Trump presidency has increased the demand for the services of historians.

Donald Trump might be disastrous for most Americans and a danger to the world, but he has been a boon to historians. The more grotesque his presidency appears, the more historians are called on to make sense of it, often in 30-second blasts on cable news or in quick-take quotes in a news article.

Temkin notes that one of the most popular analogies used to understand Trump is the Nixon presidency. Temkin cautions against the use of this historical analogy and all of the other historical analogies currently being used to make sense of Trump. He writes that

We teach our…

View original post 983 more words