PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a brief overview from the literature on how best to define megaprojects in contemporary contexts. There is a need for a definition that encompasses a complex matrix of characteristics, inclusive of positive and negative aspects, which are not necessarily industry or sector specific. Whilst megaprojects have often been described and defined in terms of cost, they are more accurately delineated by their convolutions. Intricacies arise from political intrigues surrounding funding of such projects and managing and governing complex social and organisational relations. Points for future research are also identified, including: contexts; procurement; institutional perspectives; constituting megaproject cultures; and sustainability. Design/methodology/approachAn analysis of international megaproject literature over the past five years combined with seminal works was undertaken. Drawing on the broad literature of project and program management combined with elements of organizational theory. Whilst some examples are cited, in depth case analysis has not been covered. FindingsAlbeit that the scale of some megaprojects is comparable to national GDP's, seven more characteristics beyond size have been identified which, distinguish megaprojects from large projects. These include: reach; duration; risks and uncertainties; widely disparate actors; areas of controversy such as dispute resolution; and legal and regulatory issues. Originality/valueRigorous stakeholder engagement is critical for success in megaprojects and collaborative learnings need to be exchanged. The longer term social and economic impacts need to be viewed as an imperative rather than a hindrance to the planning and execution of megaprojects and complexity rather than cost more aptly defines megaprojects.

Sharon Winsor was not intent on becoming one of Australia’s leading female Indigenous entrepreneurs, it was rather unexpected. In seeking to escape from an abusive relationship and provide for her family, she turned to her knowledge of native foods and love of ‘wild harvesting’ from her childhood, to develop a thriving business. Her traditional knowledge of harvesting native foods has now led to the creation of products such as lemon myrtle sweet chilli sauce, Davidson plum syrup and cosmetics using ingredients such as Kakadu plum, emu oil, lemon myrtle and wild berry. Sharon now finds herself in a position where increased opportunities for international expansion are demanding increased volume and scale from her rural operations, where she works with Indigenous communities. She faces three key challenges about the future of Indigiearth:1.How can Indigiearth achieve scale while maintaining profitability and social mission?2.How can Indigiearth protect its competitive advantage in the face of increased local agricultural competition, as Indigenous crops increase in value?3.How can traditional knowledge be both shared and protected for community development (jobs and wealth creation) and for future generations?The New Year is close and Sharon already has received large orders coming in from Europe and there is much interest from China and Japan. These decisions will determine how Indigiearth is structured, with whom it needs to partner to develop the Indigenous food industry, and how it will need to work with stakeholders on the issue of traditional knowledge while meeting the growing needs of the company. Sharon has a passion for her native products and wants to preserve the knowledge and respect that goes into her products – the dilemmas she is facing are putting her under immense pressure. She may choose to expand while maintaining the integrity of her business – but how can this be done?

Understood as an act of violence intentionally perpetuated by one person over another, bullying is a direct affront to ethics, especially when ethics is seen to be grounded in a primary relationship with and responsibility for other people. Existing research has attended largely to providing individualized rather than organizational explanations of bullying and has not adequately interrogated bullying in relation to ethics. With this paper, we address the question "What are organizations' ethical responsibilities in responding to the bullying that occurs within them?" We argue that although organizations cannot necessarily be held responsible for individual acts of bullying, they can be held responsible for asserting constant vigilance that seeks to address and minimize the presence of such acts. We call for organizations to act, not just to prevent or censure individual acts of bullying, but also to engage in an ongoing and active self-critique of all of their practices insofar as they support the institutionalization and normalization of bullying relationships.

We thank current and former colleagues at UTS Business School who have contributed ideas and their experience to the evolving pedagogical model of the course. We also acknowledge the contribution of our students who have provided ongoing feedback, suggestions and reinforcement for our course and learning design. In addition, we would like to thank the Associate Editor, Dr. Patricia (Trish) Corner, and the anonymous reviewers for challenging us to better articulate our conceptual framework and pedagogical model. Their constructive feedback and suggestions greatly helped us strengthen the paper 2

No abstract