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.

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.

As climate change, social inequities, and other critical issues grow ever more urgent, many companies have built dedicated departments focused on corporate social responsibility (CSR). But while this is an important first step, the authors’ new research suggests that organizations with the most mature CSR programs are often actually those with the smallest CSR departments. Based on an in-depth analysis of several Swiss firms as well as a review of prior research on CSR implementation, they identify a three-phase process through which many companies progress as their CSR operations advance from high-level vision to on-the-ground impact: A nascent stage in which the CSR department centralizes and coalesces, an intermediate stage in which it decentralizes and orchestrates, and a final stage in which it retreats and consults. Through this process, resources shift from the central CSR team out into functional units, meaning that the size and budget of the CSR department is often a poor indicator of the maturity of its CSR execution. To paint an accurate picture of a company’s performance — and to identify opportunities for improvement — the authors ultimately suggest that it’s essential to recognize these nuances and calibrate expectations and evaluations accordingly.

The full article can be read in Harvard Business Review.

In this commentary, we engage with the study by Carney, El Ghoul, Guedhami, Lu and Wang, titled ‘‘Political corporate social responsibility: The role of deliberative capacity.’’ Their study provides empirical support for earlier claims that deliberative capacity – the capacity of political institutions to enable diverse stakeholders to collectively assemble and voice their opinions – is an important building block to understanding the prominence or lack thereof of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a country. In so doing, Carney and co-authors contribute to the so-called ‘‘Political CSR’’ or PCSR literature. Yet, their study carries two important shortcomings that can be addressed to bring PCSR research forward in an IB context. First, they ignore a fundamental tenet of the PCSR literature, namely the existence of global governance gaps requiring private businesses to actively engage in political activity. Second, and related to the first, their model and associated variables are misspecified, with independent and dependent variables that are at least partially overlapping. Departing from these shortcomings, we attempt to engage constructively with their work in the interest of advancing the conversation in IB about private sector involvement in democratic will formation to achieve social and environmental responsibility.

sign up to our newsletter
Stay informed. Stay connected.
No Fluent Forms Found
Copyright © 2024 VU Business & Society Knowledge Hub