A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

  Subjects -> PHILOSOPHY (Total: 762 journals)
The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice.
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Business Ethics Quarterly
Journal Prestige (SJR): 1.098
Citation Impact (citeScore): 2
Number of Followers: 18  
 
  Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 1052-150X - ISSN (Online) 2153-3326
Published by Cambridge University Press Homepage  [352 journals]
  • Guest Editors’ Introduction: The Challenges and Prospects of
           Deliberative Democracy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Gilbert; Dirk Ulrich, Rasche, Andreas, Schormair, Maximilian J. L., Singer, Abraham
      Pages: 1 - 25
      Abstract: This introduction argues that the use of the concept of deliberative democracy in corporate social responsibility (CSR) research needs to be theoretically extended. We review three developments that have recently occurred in deliberative democracy theory within political science and philosophy: 1) the conceptualization of deliberative systems (macro level), 2) the considerations of mini-publics (micro level), and 3) the role of online deliberation. We discuss the challenges and prospects that incorporating these three developments into future CSR-related research creates. We thereby also introduce the articles in this special issue and show how they connect to each of the three developments. On the basis of this discussion, we outline the contours for a more general program of distributed deliberative CSR that enables CSR scholars to incorporate an updated understanding of deliberative democracy theory into their future work.
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.35
       
  • BEQ volume 33 issue 1 Cover and Front matter

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Pages: 1 - 6
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.42
       
  • BEQ volume 33 issue 1 Cover and Back matter

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Pages: 1 - 5
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.43
       
  • Who Counts in Business Ethics

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Martin; Kirsten
      Pages: 216 - 243
      Abstract: The discipline of business ethics has been slow to include Big Tech as a worthwhile object of examination. My goal in this presidential address is to make the case that the discipline of business ethics is overlooking novel harms and marginalized stakeholders in emerging and impactful technology industries. Furthermore, although the discipline is improving, the persistent narrowness of our field inhibits our ability to identify and examine novel issues in these important industries. I use standpoint theory to suggest one reason why we remain narrow in what we think counts in business ethics as valid objects of concern: because we are similarly narrow in who counts as a business ethicist. As scholars, we are a lens that we train on the world to identify who counts as a scholar, what we study, and who matters.
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.34
       
  • The WEIRDEST People in the World: How the West Became Psychologically
           Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, by Joseph Henrich. New York: Farrar,
           Straus, and Giroux, 2020. 704 pp.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Gjesdal; Adam
      Pages: 244 - 247
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.37
       
  • Business Adaptation to Climate Change, by Jorge E. Rivera, Chang Hoon Oh,
           Jennifer Oetzel, and Viviane Clement. Cambridge: Cambridge University
           Press, 2022. 284 pp.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Haigh; Nardia
      Pages: 248 - 251
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.36
       
  • Economic Ekphrasis of a Broken Table: Goldin+Senneby, Banca Rotta, 2013

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Guillet de Monthoux; Pierre, Wikberg, Erik
      Pages: 252 - 259
      PubDate: 2023-02-01
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.38
       
  • The Contingent Role of Conflict: Deliberative Interaction and Disagreement
           in Shareholder Engagement

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Beccarini; Irene, Beunza, Daniel, Ferraro, Fabrizio, Hoepner, Andreas G. F.
      Pages: 26 - 66
      Abstract: How is the tension between conflict and deliberation resolved in shareholder engagement' We address this question by studying shareholder engagement as a deliberative process with three stages: establishing dialogue, solution development, and solution implementation. We theorize that two interactionist mechanisms, deliberative interaction and the voicing of disagreement, play different roles at different stages of the process. We test our hypotheses with a proprietary database of 169 environmental, social, and governance engagements with US public companies over 2007–12. We find that while deliberative interaction does not help advance the engagement process, it positively moderates the effect of disagreement in the solution development stage. By contrast, in the solution implementation stage, deliberative interaction amplifies the negative effect of disagreement, thus hindering progress in the engagement. Our article contributes to shareholder engagement, deliberation theory, and interactionist organization theory by establishing that engagement effectiveness is an interactional achievement shaped by both deliberation and disagreement.
      PubDate: 2022-02-10
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.46
       
  • The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative
           Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Pek; Simon, Mena, Sébastien, Lyons, Brent
      Pages: 102 - 145
      Abstract: Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs)—private governance mechanisms involving firms, civil society organizations, and other actors deliberating to set rules, such as standards or codes of conduct, with which firms comply voluntarily—have become important tools for governing global business activities and the social and environmental consequences of these activities. Yet, this growth is paralleled with concerns about MSIs’ deliberative capacity, including the limited inclusion of some marginalized stakeholders, bias toward corporate interests, and, ultimately, ineffectiveness in their role as regulators. In this article, we conceptualize MSIs as deliberative systems to open the black box of the different elements that make up the MSI polity and better understand how their deliberative capacity hinges on problems in different elements. On the basis of this conceptualization, we examine how deliberative mini-publics—forums in which a randomly selected group of individuals from a particular population engage in learning and facilitated deliberations about a topic—can improve the deliberative capacity of MSIs.
      PubDate: 2022-09-22
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2022.20
       
  • Deep Learning Meets Deep Democracy: Deliberative Governance and
           Responsible Innovation in Artificial Intelligence

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Buhmann; Alexander, Fieseler, Christian
      Pages: 146 - 179
      Abstract: Responsible innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) calls for public deliberation: well-informed “deep democratic” debate that involves actors from the public, private, and civil society sectors in joint efforts to critically address the goals and means of AI. Adopting such an approach constitutes a challenge, however, due to the opacity of AI and strong knowledge boundaries between experts and citizens. This undermines trust in AI and undercuts key conditions for deliberation. We approach this challenge as a problem of situating the knowledge of actors from the AI industry within a deliberative system. We develop a new framework of responsibilities for AI innovation as well as a deliberative governance approach for enacting these responsibilities. In elucidating this approach, we show how actors from the AI industry can most effectively engage with experts and nonexperts in different social venues to facilitate well-informed judgments on opaque AI systems and thus effectuate their democratic governance.
      PubDate: 2022-01-24
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.42
       
  • Islands of Deliberative Capacity in an Ocean of Authoritarian Control'
           The Deliberative Potential of Self-Organised Teams in Firms

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Krüger; Alexander
      Pages: 67 - 101
      Abstract: Business firms play an increasingly influential role in contemporary societies, which has led many scholars to return to the question of the democratisation of corporate governance. However, the possibility of democratic deliberation within firms has received only marginal attention in the current debate. This article fills this gap in the literature by making a normative case for democratic deliberation at the workplace and empirically assessing the deliberative capacity of self-organised teams within business firms. It is based on sixteen in-depth interviews in six German firms which practice various forms of self-organised teamwork. The article argues that self-organised teamwork can create a space for authentic, inclusive, and consequential deliberation by suspending authoritarian control structures within business firms. Finally, the article proposes the consideration of firms not only as necessary parts of a larger deliberative system but also as deliberative systems in themselves.
      PubDate: 2021-12-03
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.39
       
  • Affects in Online Stakeholder Engagement: A Dissensus Perspective

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Authors: Castelló; Itziar, Lopez-Berzosa, David
      Pages: 180 - 215
      Abstract: A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.
      PubDate: 2021-12-09
      DOI: 10.1017/beq.2021.35
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 35.172.230.154
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-