By considering what we identify as a problem inherent in the 'nature of the firm'-the risk of abuse of authority-we propound the conception of a social contract theory of the firm which is truly Rawlsian in its inspiration. Hence, we link the social contract theory of the firm (justice at firm's level) with the general theory of justice (justice at society's level). Through this path, we enter the debate about whether firms can be part of Rawlsian theory of justice showing that corporate governance principles enter the "basic structure." Finally, we concur with Sen's aim to broaden the realm of social justice beyond what he calls the 'transcendental institutional perfectionism' of Rawls' theory. We maintain the contractarian approach to justice but introduce Sen's capability concept as an element of the constitutional and post-constitutional contract model of institutions with special reference to corporate governance. Accordingly, rights over primary goods and capabilities are (constitutionally) granted by the basic institutions of society, but many capabilities have to be turned into the functionings of many stakeholders through the operation of firms understood as post-constitutional institutional domains. The constitutional contract on the distribution of primary goods and capabilities should then shape the principles of corporate governance so that at post-constitutional level anyone may achieve her/his functionings in the corporate domain by exercising such capabilities. In the absence of such a condition, post-constitutional contracts would distort the process that descends from constitutional rights and capabilities toward social outcomes.

Universities are rethinking their teaching and research programs and their whole third mission in response to the framework provided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). But how do universities walk the talk? What are the main strategies and activities undertaken by universities to implement the 2030 Agenda? While the higher education literature has documented the growing number of practices and strategies around SDGs, there have been few attempts to synthesize these scholarly resources. Moreover, the knowledge base revolves around an array of activities, which makes the literature seem fragmented. To fill this gap, the present paper conducts a systematic literature review and derives a method of categorizing activities that can support further knowledge growth. We classified 130 selected papers based on the type of university activities considered (research, teaching, third mission, and managing operations) and the level of the implemented action (macro, meso, and micro). Subsequently, we identified the main gaps in the literature and discussed future research avenues for addressing higher education's role in accomplishing SDGs.

Benefit corporations (BCs) are profit‐with‐purpose organizations regulated by a legal framework for establishing explicit commitments in terms of multi‐stakeholder governance and accountability structures. We comprehensively analyze the theoretical alignment of four concepts (ownership, mission, governance, and accountability) to explain the legal rationale for BCs' unique corporate form. However, the boundaries of BC legislation are blurry, leaving them open to top‐down governance arrangements and weak accountability. To explore this ambiguity, this paper investigates whether BCs implement a de facto (i.e., beyond the letter of the law) multi‐stakeholder structure with governance models and downward accountability mechanisms that balance different stakeholders' interests, instead of focusing only on shareholder profits. This further highlight the soft boundaries imposed by the BC regulatory framework and suggests that more work is needed to explore the relationship between governance models that differently balance stakeholders' claims and the firm's social performance.

By considering what we identify as a problem inherent in the 'nature of the firm'-the risk of abuse of authority-we propound the conception of a social contract theory of the firm which is truly Rawlsian in its inspiration. Hence, we link the social contract theory of the firm (justice at firm's level) with the general theory of justice (justice at society's level). Through this path, we enter the debate about whether firms can be part of Rawlsian theory of justice showing that corporate governance principles enter the "basic structure." Finally, we concur with Sen's aim to broaden the realm of social justice beyond what he calls the 'transcendental institutional perfectionism' of Rawls' theory. We maintain the contractarian approach to justice but introduce Sen's capability concept as an element of the constitutional and post-constitutional contract model of institutions with special reference to corporate governance. Accordingly, rights over primary goods and capabilities are (constitutionally) granted by the basic institutions of society, but many capabilities have to be turned into the functionings of many stakeholders through the operation of firms understood as post-constitutional institutional domains. The constitutional contract on the distribution of primary goods and capabilities should then shape the principles of corporate governance so that at post-constitutional level anyone may achieve her/his functionings in the corporate domain by exercising such capabilities. In the absence of such a condition, post-constitutional contracts would distort the process that descends from constitutional rights and capabilities toward social outcomes.

No abstract