2020
DOI: 10.5465/ambpp.2020.14903abstract
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Varieties and Externalities of Biosocial Organizations in the Anthropocene Era

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1
1
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…And finally, we note how, historically, the use of idiosyncratic conceptions of social ontology that gave rise to differential notions of organizational status, architecture and capacities was embedded by the need for a "social contract" (Konzelmann et al, 2022;Monfardini, Quattrone, & Ruggiero, 2022). We argue that the reconsideration of the need for such a "social contract," in conjunction with a reconsideration of the role of the scope and remit of the "corporate order" in delineating the "materiality" of stakeholder interests can usefully inform the debate on the reform of specific institutions (e.g., in company law, corporate reporting and finance) in order to strengthen and extend the managerial and investor mandate to engage with "externalities," such as pollution, human rights, and inequality (Sjåfjell, 2018;Valiorgue, Metz, & Bourlier Bargues, 2020;Veldman et al, 2016;Veldman, 2018). Attention to the link between social ontology, corporate governance and political economy can thus usefully inform debates on the "grand challenges" of societal inequality and planetary sustainability (Aguilera et al, 2021;Clarke, 2016;Haldane, 2015;Metcalf & Benn, 2012;Veldman et al, 2016).…”
Section: Political Economymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…And finally, we note how, historically, the use of idiosyncratic conceptions of social ontology that gave rise to differential notions of organizational status, architecture and capacities was embedded by the need for a "social contract" (Konzelmann et al, 2022;Monfardini, Quattrone, & Ruggiero, 2022). We argue that the reconsideration of the need for such a "social contract," in conjunction with a reconsideration of the role of the scope and remit of the "corporate order" in delineating the "materiality" of stakeholder interests can usefully inform the debate on the reform of specific institutions (e.g., in company law, corporate reporting and finance) in order to strengthen and extend the managerial and investor mandate to engage with "externalities," such as pollution, human rights, and inequality (Sjåfjell, 2018;Valiorgue, Metz, & Bourlier Bargues, 2020;Veldman et al, 2016;Veldman, 2018). Attention to the link between social ontology, corporate governance and political economy can thus usefully inform debates on the "grand challenges" of societal inequality and planetary sustainability (Aguilera et al, 2021;Clarke, 2016;Haldane, 2015;Metcalf & Benn, 2012;Veldman et al, 2016).…”
Section: Political Economymentioning
confidence: 99%