To effectively tackle climate change, the strategic management enterprise needs to fundamentally reinvent itself. In their Point, Bansal, Durand, Kreutzer, Kunisch and McGahan forcefully argue for such a turnaround and outline a ‘new strategy’ paradigm that integrates the constraints of planetary boundaries and Earth systems not as an afterthought, but as the basis of inquiry. This, however, doesn’t come without fierce contestation, as shown by the Counterpoint by Foss and Klein and the further Counterpoint by Davis and DeWitt. In this introduction to
the Point-Counterpoint debate on strategic management and climate change, we argue that this contestation is largely due to what we call three epistemic fault lines that cut through how strat-
egy scholars understand climate change, devise possible solutions, and assume the relationship between theories and reality. We specify these fault lines and connect them to important avenues for future research that expand the strategic management conversation about climate change.
The Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan enjoys global fame for its pursuit of GNH (Gross National Happiness) as an alternative model of development. An increase in youth unemployment has made Bhutan look to entrepreneurship as a possible solution, prompting a need for entrepreneurship education. But what could entrepreneurship education look like in a context where policies and culture promote simple living and contentment, are cautious with regard to cultural change, and seek to constrain wealth accumulation of private sector entrepreneurs? This essay offers a number of suggestions for entrepreneurship education guided by GNH principles.
This editorial introduces and explains the Journal of Management Studies’ (JMS) new policy on artificial intelligence (AI). We reflect on the use of AI in conducting research and generating journal submissions and what this means for the wider JMS community, including our authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Specifically, we consider how AI-generated research and text could both assist and augment the publication process, as well as harm it. Consequentially, our policy acknowledges the need for careful oversight regarding the use of AI to assist in the authoring of texts and in data analyses, while also noting the importance of requiring authors to be transparent about how, when and where they have utilized AI in their submissions or underlying research. Additionally, we examine how and in what ways AI's use may be antithetical to the spirit of a quality journal like JMS that values both human voice and research transparency. Our editorial explains why we require author teams to oversee all aspects of AI use within their projects, and to take personal responsibility for accuracy in all aspects of their research. We also explain our prohibition of AI's use in peer-reviewers’ evaluations of submissions, and regarding editors’ handling of manuscripts.
Management is a global phenomenon. Yet, the vast majority of empirical investiga- tions and theoretical explanations of management, managers and those being managed that are published in leading management journals are based on research that predominantly originates from Western contexts, particularly the USA and the larger European countries. Non-Western contexts, in turn, reside at the periphery of mainstream management scholarship. This is problem- atic for multiple reasons. It provides an inherently limited view on the contextual factors that may explain variation in management practices across the globe, and it leads to a reductionist view of non-Western contexts to offer little more than a means for teasing out the boundary conditions of mainstream ‘Western’ theories. This exclusion of non-Western contexts has resulted in a marginalization of non-Western scholarly voices, who are often hesitant to submit their research to leading scholarly journals. To address these interrelated problems, we use this introduction to the Thematic Collection on ‘Embracing non-Western contexts’ in the Journal of Management Studies to call on schol- ars to more fully embrace non-Western contexts in their research, and in doing so, to unleash the explanatory potential of these contexts for our understanding of management.
Scholars have long debated the definition of social entrepreneurship, but disagreement persists. Despite sustained efforts to craft a universal definition, social entrepreneurship has been characterized as an ʻessentially contested concept’. However, little is known about the root causes of this ongoing contestation. Therefore, we delve into the literature's social entrepreneurship definitions to examine this complex issue. Our systematic literature review leverages insights from the philosophy of science and formal logic—specifically, a theory of definition—to present four rules for definitional evaluation in the social sciences. Accordingly, definitions should convey the essence of a concept (Rule 1: essence), differentiate between their defining and defined terms (Rule 2: expression), be phrased positively (Rule 3: explication), and avoid figurative and obscure language (Rule 4: eloquence). Using these rules to analyse 156 original social entrepreneurship definitions reveals varying interpretations of the concept's essence and sheds light on epistemological issues, such as tautological definitions. Integrating these findings into a practical ʻrulebook’ for definitional evaluation significantly contributes to the social entrepreneurship literature and other highly contested fields by helping to understand different sources of contestation. Guided by our rulebook, we suggest future research avenues and highlight diverse theorizing styles, the engagement of opposing and paradoxical definitional views and the role of academic language in shaping the social entrepreneurship field.
The relationship between nonfinancial reporting and real sustainable change within and beyond
organizations is fraught with complication. Furthermore, all facets of the relationship have not
been examined equally. The contributions of this special issue made substantive progress in
this regard and draw our focus to several remaining complications—in particular, the societal
impacts of nonfinancial reporting. With this introduction, we seek to move the conversation
forward by proposing a framework that disentangles the linkages between nonfinancial
reporting and real sustainable change at multiple levels of analysis. We highlight the distinction
between sustainability-related outputs and outcomes that typically materialize at the firm level,
and eventually lead to sustainable impact at the societal level. Future research should advance
this distinction and scrutinize the impact of real sustainable change beyond firm-level outputs,
study the organizational change processes from antecedents to impacts, and examine the
interrelationships between different instruments to foster real sustainable change.
