Literature Summary - Organizations and Society PDF

Literature summary - organizations and society Inhoudsopgave {#inhoudsopgave.Kopvaninhoudsopgave} ============= [Lecture 1 4](#lecture-1) [Artikel 1 Freeman & Parmar (2007) 4](#artikel-1-freeman-parmar-2007) [Artikel 2 Friedman 4](#artikel-2-friedman) [Artikel 3 Johnson; Globalization 5](#artikel-3-johnson-globalization) [Artikel 4 Stiglitz 6](#artikel-4-stiglitz) [Artikel 5 Achterbergh & Vriends 7](#artikel-5-achterbergh-vriens) [Lecture 2 9](#lecture-2) [Artikel 6 Akram; Moral injury & Covid-19 9](#artikel-6-akram-moral-injury-covid-19) [Artikel 7 Athanassoulis; Virtue Ethics 9](#artikel-7-athanassoulis-virtue-ethics) [Artikel 8 BBC; Duty-based ethics/deontology 10](#artikel-8-bbc-duty-based-ethicsdeontology) [Artikel 9 Christie, T., Groarke, L., & Sweet, W. (2008); Virtue Ethics 11](#artikel-9-christie-t.-groarke-l.-sweet-w.-2008-virtue-ethics) [Artikel 10 Greenhalgh, T. (2021). Moral uncertainty 12](#artikel-10-greenhalgh-t.-2021.-moral-uncertainty) [Artikel 11 - Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism 13](#artikel-11---nathanson-s.-n.d..-act-and-rule-utilitarianism) [Artikel 12 - Dittmer, J. (n.d.). Applied Ethics. 16](#artikel-12---dittmer-j.-n.d..-applied-ethics.) [Artikel 13 - McCormick, M. (n.d.). 8. Kant\'s Ethics 16](#artikel-13---mccormick-m.-n.d..-8.-kants-ethics) [Artikel 14 - Van Staveren, I. (2007). 18](#artikel-14---van-staveren-i.-2007.) [Lecture 3 22](#lecture-3) [Artikel 15 - Crane (2014); Creating Shared Value 22](#artikel-15---crane-2014-creating-shared-value) [Artikel 16 - Mosley, L. (2017). Workers' rights in global value chains 25](#artikel-16---mosley-l.-2017.-workers-rights-in-global-value-chains) [Artikel 17 -- Optional: Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). 28](#artikel-17-optional-porter-m.-e.-kramer-m.-r.-2011.) [Artikel 18 Waddock, S. (2008). 28](#artikel-18-waddock-s.-2008.) [Lecture 4 30](#lecture-4) [Artikel 19: Curran, D. (2018a). 30](#artikel-19-curran-d.-2018a.) [Artikel 20: Curran, D. (2018b). Organized irresponsibility and the contradictions of collective agency 32](#artikel-20-curran-d.-2018b.-organized-irresponsibility-and-the-contradictions-of-collective-agency) [Artikel 21: Passas, N. (2005). Lawful but awful:'Legal corporate crimes' 35](#artikel-21-passas-n.-2005.-lawful-but-awfullegal-corporate-crimes) [Lecture 5 38](#lecture-5) [Artikel 22 Mitchell et al. (1997) Stakeholder Salience 38](#artikel-22-mitchell-et-al.-1997-stakeholder-salience) [Artikel 23 Scherer & Palazzo (2007) Corporate responsibility 39](#artikel-23-scherer-palazzo-2007-corporate-responsibility) [Artikel 24 Schiavone (2021). Digital business models and ridesharing for value co-creation in healthcare 40](#artikel-24-schiavone-2021.-digital-business-models-and-ridesharing-for-value-co-creation-in-healthcare) [Artikel 25 Scott (2008) Three pillars of institutions 44](#artikel-25-scott-2008-three-pillars-of-institutions) [Artikel 26 Suchman (1995) Managing Legitimacy 46](#artikel-26-suchman-1995-managing-legitimacy) [Artikel 27 Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996); Radical organizational change 47](#artikel-27-greenwood-r.-hinings-c.-r.-1996-radical-organizational-change) [Artikel 28 Raaijmakers & Vermeulen; Compliance under institutional complexity 50](#artikel-28-raaijmakers-vermeulen-compliance-under-institutional-complexity) [\ ] [Lecture 1]\ Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits;\ The New York Times Magazine; September 13, 1970.\ Johnson, D.G. (2002) Globalization: what it is and who benefits; Journal of Asian\ Economics, 13, 427-439.\ Stiglitz, J. E. (2008) Making Globalisation Work -- The 2006 Geary Lecture; The\ Economic and Social Review, 39(3), Winter 2008, 171--190.\ Achterbergh, J. & D. Vriens (2009) Organizational structures supporting rich\ survival. In: Organizations: social systems conducting experiments. (New York:\ Springer), Chapter 11, sections 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.1.1, 345-356. [Lecture 2]\ Akram, F. (2021). Moral Injury and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philosophical\ Viewpoint. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. Forthcoming.\ Athanassoulis, N. (n.d.). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/ 2 Link 15\ BBC. (2014). About duty-based ethics. Duty-based or Deontological ethics.\ Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/duty\_1.shtml\ Christie, T., Groarke, L., & Sweet, W. (2008). Virtue ethics as an alternative to\ deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction\ debate. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(1), 52-58.\ Greenhalgh, T. (2021). Moral uncertainty: a case study of covid-19. Patient\ education and counseling. Forthcoming.\ Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved from\ Dittmer, J. (n.d.). Applied Ethics. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/;\ only section 1. and 2.\ McCormick, M. (n.d.). 8. Kant\'s Ethics and 9. Kant's Criticisms of Utilitarianism (in\ Immanuel Kant Metaphysics). Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/\#H8; only\ section 8. and 9.\ Van Staveren, I. (2007). Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics.\ Review of Political Economy, 19(1), 21-35. [Lecture 3]\ Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of\ "creating shared value". California Management Review, 56(2), 130-153.\ Mosley, L. (2017). Workers' rights in global value chains: possibilities for protection\ and for peril. New Political Economy, 22(2), 153-168.\ Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). "Creating Shared Value," Harvard Business\ Review, 89/1-2, 62-77.\ Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate\ responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87-108.\ \ Lecture 4 on Organized Irresponsibility, Claudia Gross\ Curran, D. (2018a). The organized irresponsibility principle and risk arbitrage.\ Critical Criminology, 26(4), 595-610.\ Curran, D. (2018b). Organized irresponsibility, corporations and the contradictions of\ collective agency and individual culpability. In Revisiting Crimes of the Powerful\ (pp. 322-334): Routledge.\ Passas, N. (2005). Lawful but awful:'Legal corporate crimes'. The journal of socio-\ economics, 34(6), 771-786. Lecture 5 on Stakeholder Theory, Steffi Menten\ Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle & D.J. Wood (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder\ identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts;\ Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.\ Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate\ responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy\ of Management Review, 32(4), 1096-1120.\ Schembera, S. (2018). Implementing corporate social responsibility: Empirical\ insights on the impact of the UN Global Compact on its business participants.\ Business & Society, 57(5); only pages 783-796.\ Schiavone, F., Mancini, D., Leone, D., & Lavorato, D. (2021). Digital business\ models and ridesharing for value co-creation in healthcare: A multi-stakeholder\ ecosystem analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 166, 120647. Lecture 6 on Institutional Theory, Patrick Vermeulen -- TUESDAY 3 Oct, 10.30\ Scott, R. (2008) Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three pillars of institutions; In:\ Scott, R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks: Sage), 55-74.\ Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing Legitimacy - Strategic and Institutional\ Approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-586.\ 56 Link 15 Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism***. Academy of Management Review, 21(4): 1022-1054.*** **\ ** Lecture 1 ========= Artikel 1 Freeman & Parmar (2007) --------------------------------- [Freeman, E.M.K., and Parmar, B. (2007) Stakeholder Capitalism; Journal of Business Ethics ; 74, 305-314] The article \"Stakeholder Capitalism\" by Freeman and Parmar, published in the Journal of Business Ethics in 2007, explores the concept of stakeholder capitalism. The authors argue that traditional models of capitalism, which prioritize shareholder value, are inadequate in addressing the complexities and challenges of the modern business environment. The article emphasizes the importance of considering the interests and needs of multiple stakeholders, including employees, customers, suppliers, and the community, in addition to shareholders. The authors propose that businesses should adopt a stakeholder-oriented approach, which involves actively engaging with and managing the expectations of all relevant stakeholders. Freeman and Parmar highlight the potential benefits of stakeholder capitalism, such as improved long-term performance, enhanced reputation, and strengthened relationships with stakeholders. They also address potential criticisms and challenges associated with implementing this approach, including the difficulty of balancing conflicting stakeholder interests and the need for clear accountability and governance mechanisms. Overall, the article argues that stakeholder capitalism offers a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to business, encouraging a broader consideration of ethical, social, and environmental factors. It calls for businesses to move beyond solely focusing on shareholder value and embrace a more inclusive approach that considers the interests of all stakeholders. Artikel 2 Friedman ------------------ [Friedman, M. (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits; The New York Times Magazine ; September 13, 1970] In the article \"The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits\" by Milton Friedman, published in The New York Times Magazine in 1970, the author presents a contrasting perspective to the concept of stakeholder capitalism. Friedman argues that the primary responsibility of businesses is to maximize profits for their shareholders. Friedman criticizes the idea that businesses should engage in activities that serve broader social or environmental goals, arguing that such actions are outside the scope of a company\'s purpose. He contends that the pursuit of profit is the driving force behind economic growth and prosperity, and any diversion from this objective is detrimental to society. The author asserts that societal problems should be addressed by the government and individuals, rather than placing the burden on businesses. He suggests that when companies engage in social initiatives, they are essentially spending shareholders\' money without their consent, which is a violation of their fiduciary duty. Friedman argues that the pursuit of profit, within the boundaries of the law and ethical considerations, ultimately benefits society as a whole. He believes that businesses should focus on generating value for shareholders, as this will lead to economic growth, job creation, and the overall betterment of society. Overall, the article presents a perspective that prioritizes shareholder value and questions the notion that businesses should actively engage in broader social responsibility initiatives. Friedman asserts that businesses should focus solely on profit maximization, leaving societal issues to be addressed by other entities. Artikel 3 Johnson; Globalization -------------------------------- [Johnson, D.G. (2002) Globalization: what it is and who benefits; Journal of Asian Economics, 13, 427-439.] The article \"Globalization: what it is and who benefits\" by David G. Johnson, published in the Journal of Asian Economics in 2002, examines the concept of globalization and its impact on different stakeholders. Johnson explores the various dimensions of globalization and analyzes who benefits from this phenomenon. The author provides a comprehensive overview of globalization, highlighting its economic, political, and cultural aspects. Johnson argues that globalization is driven by advancements in technology, communication, and transportation, leading to increased interconnectedness and integration of economies worldwide. Johnson discusses the different perspectives on the benefits of globalization, noting that while some argue that it leads to increased economic growth, others raise concerns about its negative consequences, such as inequality and exploitation. The author emphasizes the importance of considering both the positive and negative impacts of globalization to gain a more nuanced understanding of its effects. The article also examines who benefits from globalization. Johnson highlights that multinational corporations and developed countries often have a competitive advantage in the globalized economy, as they can exploit resources and labor from less developed nations. However, the author also acknowledges that globalization can create opportunities for economic development and poverty reduction in some regions. Johnson concludes by suggesting that policies and regulations should be implemented to ensure that the benefits of globalization are more evenly distributed. He emphasizes the need for inclusive growth, where all stakeholders, including workers, consumers, and governments, can participate and benefit from the globalized economy. Overall, the article provides a comprehensive analysis of globalization, its impact, and who benefits from it. Johnson presents a balanced view, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of globalization and advocating for policies that promote more equitable distribution of its benefits. Artikel 4 Stiglitz ------------------ [Stiglitz, J. E. (2008) Making Globalisation Work -- The 2006 Geary Lecture; The Economic and Social Review , 39(3), Winter 2008, 171--190] The article \"Making Globalisation Work -- The 2006 Geary Lecture\" by Joseph E. Stiglitz, published in The Economic and Social Review in 2008, explores the challenges and potential solutions to making globalization more beneficial and equitable for all. Stiglitz begins by acknowledging the potential benefits of globalization, such as increased economic growth and efficiency. However, he argues that the current form of globalization has failed to deliver on its promises, as it has exacerbated inequality and led to social and environmental problems. The author identifies several flaws in the current global economic system, including the lack of transparency, inadequate regulation, and the dominance of powerful multinational corporations. Stiglitz asserts that these factors have contributed to economic crises, environmental degradation, and social unrest. Stiglitz proposes a set of policy reforms to make globalization work for the benefit of all. He emphasizes the need for improved global governance and regulation to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair competition. The author also calls for a more inclusive approach to trade and investment agreements, with a focus on protecting workers\' rights, the environment, and public health. Furthermore, Stiglitz highlights the importance of addressing the asymmetries in power and information that exist between developed and developing countries. He argues for the need to reform international financial institutions and promote a fairer distribution of resources and benefits. The article concludes by emphasizing the urgency of taking action to reform globalization. Stiglitz argues that by addressing the flaws in the current system and adopting more inclusive and sustainable policies, globalization can be transformed into a force that promotes shared prosperity and social progress. Overall, Stiglitz\'s article provides a critical analysis of globalization and offers policy recommendations to make it work more effectively and equitably. He highlights the need for global cooperation, regulation, and inclusive policies to address the negative consequences of globalization and ensure that its benefits are shared by all. **\ ** Artikel 5 Achterbergh & Vriens ------------------------------ [Achterbergh, J. & D. Vriens (2009) Organizational structures supporting rich survival. In: Organizations: social systems conducting experiments. (New York: Springer), Chapter 11, sections 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3.1.1, 345-356] The article \"Organizational structures supporting rich survival\" by Jeroen Achterbergh and Dirk Vriens, published as Chapter 11 in the book \"Organizations: social systems conducting experiments\" in 2009, explores different organizational structures and their role in supporting the survival and success of organizations. In section 11.1, the authors discuss the concept of rich survival, which refers to organizations\' ability to adapt, innovate, and thrive in complex and uncertain environments. They argue that traditional hierarchical structures are often inadequate in facilitating rich survival due to their rigid and centralized nature. Section 11.2 delves into alternative organizational structures that can better support rich survival. The authors explore various concepts, such as self-organizing systems, network structures, and organic structures. They highlight the importance of decentralization, flexibility, and adaptability in these structures, as they allow for more efficient information flow, collaboration, and decision-making. In section 11.3.1.1, the authors specifically focus on one type of organizational structure known as the \"heterarchy.\" The heterarchy is characterized by multiple centers of power and decision-making, allowing for distributed authority and autonomy. Achterbergh and Vriens argue that the heterarchy can promote rich survival by fostering innovation, diversity of perspectives, and resilience in the face of change. Overall, the article emphasizes the need for organizations to adopt structures that support rich survival in complex and uncertain environments. It discusses the limitations of traditional hierarchical structures and explores alternative approaches, such as self-organizing systems, network structures, and the heterarchy. The authors highlight the importance of decentralization, flexibility, and adaptability in these structures, as they enable organizations to adapt, innovate, and thrive. Achterbergh and Vriens mainly talk about the modes of incorporation: a tool for reflection on complexity of discourse on organizational responsibility. About: The way how organizatons incorporate societal programs into their decisions and decision premises, can differ. It is the freedom of choice Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving ![Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving](media/image2.png) Box 1: Instrumental/ Isolating & Incorporation of societal programs a\. Sticking to programs because it contributes to contingent goals b\. Main motivation: not being punished; sticking to rules that are enforced to avoid costly punishment or loss of reputation "Incorporate safety measures to avoid bad reputation." Box 2: Instrumental/ Isolating & Incorporation beyond societal programs a\. Going beyond programs because it contributes to contingent goals b\. Main motivation: go beyond programs out of own, contingent goal "Let's buy protective equipment, because it will costs more to hire new people from the north. It is more about the cost, benefit analysis." Box 3: Responsible/ Inclusive / Integrity & Incorporation of societal programs a\. Sticking to programs because this is the right thing to do b\. Main motivation: Follow rules as the rules reflect good behaviour "Protective gear is required. They follow the rules legally, no extra things needed." Box 4: Responsible/ Inclusive / Integrity & Incorporation beyond societal programs a\. Going beyond programs because this is the right thing to do b\. Main motivation: conviction that protecting workers' health during their working hours as well as later on (accidents and toxics have long-term effect), is the right thing to do "Despite it costing extra money and no one asked for this. They want to do the "good thing"."**15** Lecture 2 ========= Artikel 6 Akram; Moral injury & Covid-19 ---------------------------------------- [Akram, F. (2021). Moral Injury and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philosophical Viewpoint.] [Ethics, Medicine and Public Health. Forthcoming.] The article \"Moral Injury and the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Philosophical Viewpoint\" by Farah Akram, published in Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, presents a philosophical perspective on the concept of moral injury in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It should be noted that the article is forthcoming and not yet available for review. The author explores the notion of moral injury and its relevance to healthcare professionals and other individuals involved in the response to the pandemic. Moral injury refers to the psychological distress and moral conflict experienced when individuals are unable to act in alignment with their deeply held moral values and principles. Akram examines how the COVID-19 pandemic has presented unique challenges that can potentially lead to moral injury. These challenges include making difficult decisions about resource allocation, prioritizing certain patients over others, and experiencing moral distress due to insufficient resources or overwhelming demands on healthcare systems. The article likely delves into philosophical discussions surrounding moral responsibility, ethical decision-making, and the impact of moral injury on individuals\' well-being and professional practice. It may also explore potential strategies for mitigating moral injury and supporting individuals who have experienced it during the pandemic. Overall, the article offers a philosophical perspective on moral injury in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It likely explores the ethical dimensions of the pandemic response and the potential impact on healthcare professionals and others involved. However, without access to the actual article, the specific arguments and conclusions presented by the author cannot be summarized in detail. Artikel 7 Athanassoulis; Virtue Ethics -------------------------------------- [Athanassoulis, N. (n.d.). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/] The article \"Virtue Ethics\" by Neera Athanassoulis provides an overview of the philosophical approach known as virtue ethics. The article is available on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. Athanassoulis begins by explaining that virtue ethics focuses on character and moral virtues as the central components of ethical decision-making. Unlike other ethical theories that emphasize rules, consequences, or intentions, virtue ethics places emphasis on the development of virtuous character traits. The article explores the historical development of virtue ethics, tracing its origins to ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle. It discusses how Aristotle\'s concept of eudaimonia, or human flourishing, forms the foundation of virtue ethics. According to virtue ethics, the goal of moral action is to cultivate virtues and live a virtuous life. Athanassoulis examines different aspects of virtue ethics, including the nature of virtues, the role of moral education, and the relationship between virtues and moral reasoning. The article also discusses criticisms and debates surrounding virtue ethics, such as the challenge of defining and measuring virtues and the potential conflicts between different virtues. Furthermore, the article explores the application of virtue ethics in various domains, such as professional ethics, environmental ethics, and bioethics. It highlights how virtue ethics can provide a framework for ethical decision-making and character development in these areas. In summary, Athanassoulis\' article provides a comprehensive introduction to virtue ethics. It explains the central concepts and principles of virtue ethics, traces its historical development, and explores its application in different contexts. The article serves as a valuable resource for understanding the foundations and implications of virtue ethics. Artikel 8 BBC; Duty-based ethics/deontology ------------------------------------------- [BBC. (2014). About duty-based ethics. Duty-based or Deontological ethics. Retrieved from ] The article \"About Duty-Based Ethics\" on the BBC website provides an introduction to duty-based or deontological ethics. It explores the key concepts and principles of this ethical framework. The article explains that duty-based ethics is a moral theory that focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, rather than their consequences. It emphasizes the importance of following moral duties and obligations, regardless of the outcomes or consequences of those actions. The article discusses the origins of duty-based ethics, tracing its roots to philosophers such as Immanuel Kant. It explains Kant\'s concept of the categorical imperative, which states that individuals should act in a way that they would want everyone else to act, and that they should treat others as ends in themselves, rather than means to an end. The article explores the distinction between hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional and dependent on desired outcomes, and categorical imperatives, which are absolute and binding. Furthermore, the article discusses some key principles and concepts within duty-based ethics, such as the principle of autonomy, the importance of universalizability, and the concept of moral rights and duties. The article concludes by acknowledging that duty-based ethics has its critics and limitations. It highlights the potential conflicts between different moral duties and the challenges of determining the correct moral duties in complex situations. Overall, the article provides a concise introduction to duty-based or deontological ethics. It explains the key concepts, principles, and criticisms of this ethical framework, offering readers a basic understanding of its foundations and implications. Artikel 9 Christie, T., Groarke, L., & Sweet, W. (2008); Virtue Ethics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Christie, T., Groarke, L., & Sweet, W. (2008). Virtue ethics as an alternative to deontological and consequential reasoning in the harm reduction debate. International Journal of Drug Policy, 19(1), 52-58.] The article \"Virtue Ethics as an Alternative to Deontological and Consequential Reasoning in the Harm Reduction Debate\" by Terry Christie, Leo Groarke, and William Sweet, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy in 2008, explores the application of virtue ethics in the context of the harm reduction debate. The authors argue that traditional ethical frameworks, such as deontological (duty-based) and consequentialist (consequence-based) approaches, may not adequately address the complexities and moral dilemmas associated with harm reduction strategies in drug policy. The article discusses the principles and goals of harm reduction, which aim to minimize the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily requiring abstinence. It highlights the challenges of applying deontological and consequentialist reasoning to this issue, as they often prioritize individual autonomy or overall societal well-being, respectively. The authors propose virtue ethics as an alternative framework that can better address the moral complexities of harm reduction. Virtue ethics focuses on cultivating virtuous character traits and moral virtues, such as compassion, empathy, and practical wisdom, to guide ethical decision-making. The article explores how virtue ethics can provide a more nuanced and holistic approach to the harm reduction debate. It emphasizes the importance of considering individual virtues, moral exemplars, and context-specific considerations in evaluating harm reduction strategies. Moreover, the authors discuss how virtue ethics can help foster a more constructive and inclusive dialogue among stakeholders with differing perspectives on drug policy. They argue that virtue ethics encourages empathy, understanding, and the cultivation of shared moral values, which can contribute to more effective and ethical decision-making in the harm reduction context. In summary, the article presents virtue ethics as an alternative ethical framework for addressing the complexities of the harm reduction debate in drug policy. It explores the principles and challenges of harm reduction, highlights the limitations of deontological and consequentialist approaches, and argues for the importance of virtue ethics in promoting compassionate and effective decision-making in this context. Artikel 10 Greenhalgh, T. (2021). Moral uncertainty --------------------------------------------------- [Greenhalgh, T. (2021). Moral uncertainty: a case study of covid-19. Patient education and counseling. Forthcoming.] The article \"Moral Uncertainty: A Case Study of COVID-19\" by Trisha Greenhalgh, published in Patient Education and Counseling, presents a case study on the concept of moral uncertainty in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It should be noted that the article is forthcoming and not yet available for review. The author investigates the notion of moral uncertainty, which refers to situations where there is a lack of consensus or clarity about the morally right course of action. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, moral uncertainty arises due to the complex and rapidly evolving nature of the crisis, as well as the diverse perspectives and ethical considerations at play. Greenhalgh likely explores various ethical dilemmas and challenges posed by the pandemic, such as resource allocation, triage decisions, and the balance between individual rights and public health concerns. The article likely delves into the moral complexities faced by healthcare professionals, policymakers, and individuals in navigating these dilemmas. The case study approach may involve examining specific scenarios or real-life examples to illustrate the moral uncertainty experienced during the pandemic. The author may analyze the decision-making processes, ethical frameworks, and the implications of different choices made in these scenarios. Furthermore, the article may discuss the ethical implications of moral uncertainty and its impact on individuals\' well-being, moral distress, and the development of guidelines and policies. It may also explore strategies for addressing moral uncertainty, such as ethical deliberation, shared decision-making, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Overall, the article offers a case study on moral uncertainty in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It likely analyzes the ethical dilemmas and challenges faced during the crisis and explores the implications for decision-making and policy development. However, without access to the actual article, the specific arguments and conclusions presented by the author cannot be summarized in detail. Artikel 11 - Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism -------------------------------------------------------------- [Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/] ***[ChatGPT ]*** Utilitarianism is a prominent moral theory that assesses the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their consequences. It emphasizes that actions\' effects, particularly the production of good or bad results, are what matters morally. There are two significant branches of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarians evaluate individual actions for their immediate consequences, such as specific events like an assassination. On the other hand, rule utilitarians focus on the broader impact of types of actions, like assessing the morality of killing or stealing in general. Utilitarians aim to improve life by maximizing positive outcomes like pleasure and happiness while minimizing negative ones like pain and unhappiness. They reject moral codes based on tradition, customs, or divine commands, instead insisting that a moral system is justified by its contribution to human (and possibly non-human) well-being. Key figures in classical utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, whose ideas have had a significant influence on moral theory, economics, politics, and social policy. Although utilitarianism has faced criticism, it still garners support from contemporary thinkers. The debate about which version of utilitarianism is correct is complex due to variations within the theory and differing opinions among its proponents. This article delves into the central division between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism, explaining their differences and presenting arguments for and against each perspective. ***[\ ]*** ***[Summary Stuvia]*** Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, document, Lettertype Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving ![Afbeelding met tekst, schermopname, Lettertype, document Automatisch gegenereerde beschrijving](media/image4.png) Artikel 12 - Dittmer, J. (n.d.). Applied Ethics. ------------------------------------------------ [Dittmer, J. (n.d.). Applied Ethics. Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/applied-ethics/; only section 1. and 2.] ***ChatGPT*** Applied ethics explores ethical questions related to real-world situations and issues. It is a subset of the broader field of ethics within philosophy. Applied ethicists grapple with a wide range of moral dilemmas, including topics like abortion, civic engagement in democracies, responsibilities to the global poor, female genital excision, and more. The field is not limited to philosophers, as practical insights can be obtained both inside and outside academic philosophy departments. This article distinguishes applied ethics from other branches of ethics, such as normative ethics and metaethics, and emphasizes the diversity of topics covered by applied ethicists. Different subfields within applied ethics, like business ethics and bioethics, focus on specific issues, and experts in one area may not necessarily have expertise in another. Bioethics, in particular, presents unique challenges as it deals with contentious questions of moral standing and personhood, often involving entities with uncertain moral status, such as embryos or non-human animals. The article also highlights recurring methodological concerns and the interplay with normative and metaethics when addressing various applied ethics topics. It concludes by discussing the relevance of moral psychology and the role of emotions in moral decision-making, as well as the impact of cultural factors on moral values and the evaluation of moral practices. Artikel 13 - McCormick, M. (n.d.). 8. Kant\'s Ethics ---------------------------------------------------- [McCormick, M. (n.d.). 8. Kant\'s Ethics and 9. Kant's Criticisms of Utilitarianism (in Immanuel Kant Metaphysics). Retrieved from https://iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/\#H8; only section 8. and 9.] ***ChatGPT*** Immanuel Kant, a highly influential philosopher, made significant contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, particularly in his work \"The Critique of Pure Reason.\" He addressed the question of \"What can we know?\" and concluded that human knowledge is limited to mathematics and the empirical sciences, unable to extend to speculative metaphysics. Kant argued that the mind actively shapes our experience and confines knowledge to the empirical realm of space and time. In contrast to Empiricists, Kant rejected the idea of the mind as a blank slate shaped by the external world. He also disagreed with Rationalists who believed in pure, a priori knowledge of a reality independent of the mind. Kant proposed that reason is structured with forms of experience and categories, which provide the logical framework for empirical objects, including their spatio-temporal properties, causal relationships, and logical attributes. These ideas constitute Kant\'s transcendental idealism and empirical realism. Kant\'s ethical contributions are equally significant, as he is a prominent advocate of deontological, or duty-based, ethics. He argued that an action\'s moral worth is determined by the motive behind it, not its consequences. According to Kant, a morally valuable motive arises from universal principles discovered by reason. He formulated the categorical imperative as a central principle of duty: \"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.\" Artikel 14 - Van Staveren, I. (2007). ------------------------------------- [Van Staveren, I. (2007). Beyond utilitarianism and deontology: Ethics in economics. Review of Political Economy, 19(1), 21-35.] **Abstract** **This article starts from a methodological position that fact and value are mutually related, both in the real world and in economic analysis. It then discusses deontological ethics. This approach is concerned with equality and dignity, as expressed in right and norms, and how these rights and norms constrain individual choices. Deontology is thus different from the utility maximisation of utilitarian ethics, where ethics appears in utility functions as moral preferences. The paper then argues that, although deontology does better than utilitarianism in analysing ethics in economics, it has its own weaknesses. These weaknesses require another theory of ethics for economics, virtue ethics, which emphasises the interrelatedness of agents and commitment to shared values beyond the rules that a society has institutionalised. Virtue ethics internalises morality not as a preference or a constraint, but through the practices in which agents are related in their pursuit of value added.** **[PDF.ai]** **The article explores the topic of ethics in economics and goes beyond the traditional frameworks of utilitarianism and deontology. It discusses the difference between morality and ethics, with morality focusing on individual beliefs and actions, and ethics reflecting on the reasons for or against certain moral beliefs or actions. The author argues for the importance of incorporating virtue ethics in economic practices and highlights the need for a balance between external rewards and shared values. The article also provides examples, such as the case of corporate fraud, to illustrate the application of virtue ethics in economic decision-making.** **Overview** **This article discusses the difference between morality and ethics, emphasizing that morality is about individual beliefs and actions, while ethics is a reflection on the reasons for or against certain moral beliefs or actions. It argues against the dichotomous positioning of facts and values, and highlights the importance of values in economic analysis. The article also explores the role of virtue ethics in balancing economic practices and the significance of trust, reputation, and shared values in maintaining the balance.** **Key points** - **Morality focuses on individual beliefs and actions, while ethics reflects on the reasons for or against certain moral beliefs or actions.** - **The dichotomous positioning of facts and values in economics is problematic as it excludes one over the other without sufficient grounds.** - **Values are an integral part of economic analysis and are intertwined with facts, rather than being separated from them.** - **Virtue ethics help create a balance in economic practices by seeking a virtuous mean that allows the practice to continue and the agents to flourish.** - **Trust, reputation, and shared values play crucial roles in maintaining the balance in economic practices.** **\ ** **Virtue Ethics in the Article** **The article views virtue ethics as an ethical theory that focuses on the good person and the characteristics of the good person. It recognizes that virtues are acquired through daily interactions with others and in communities. Virtue ethics emphasizes concrete social life and relationships, rather than abstract moral rules. It acknowledges that moral behavior is imperfect and continuously adapting to changing social circumstances. However, the article also highlights some shortcomings of virtue ethics, such as its difficulty in evaluating situations, structures, and institutions, and its design for small-scale communities.** **Key Conclusions of the Article:** 1. **Fact and value are mutually related in the real world and in economic analysis, rejecting the dichotomy between fact and value.** 2. **Deontological ethics, which focuses on equality and dignity expressed in rights and norms, provides a better analysis of ethics in economics compared to utilitarianism.** 3. **However, deontology has its own weaknesses, which require the inclusion of virtue ethics in economic theory.** 4. **Virtue ethics emphasizes the interrelatedness of agents and their commitment to shared values beyond institutionalized rules.** 5. **Virtue ethics internalizes morality through the practices in which agents pursue value added, creating a balance in economic practices.** 6. **The study of corporate fraud cases reveals that leadership and the pursuit of icon status can undermine moral practices in firms.** 7. **Economic practices require a delicate balance between external rewards and concern for external value to ensure the continuity of the practice.** 8. **Trust and shared values are essential for economic practices, even in global value chains and international inter-firm relationships.** 9. **Virtue ethics offers a framework for understanding and analyzing ethics in economics by considering the interplay between agents, shared values, and the pursuit of value added.** **\ ** **[Stuvia Summary]** **\ ** Lecture 3 ========= Artikel 15 - Crane (2014); Creating Shared Value ------------------------------------------------ [Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of "creating shared value". California Management Review, 56(2), 130-153.] ***PDF.ai*** **Overview** This article discusses the concept of \"Creating Shared Value\" (CSV) proposed by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer. The authors of the article critique the originality of the CSV concept and argue that it is not distinct from other existing concepts in the field of business and society. They also highlight the positive reception of the CSV concept among practitioners and academics, as well as its strengths in elevating social goals to a strategic level. **Key points** - The authors question the originality of the CSV concept and argue that it is not distinct from other concepts in the field. - The CSV concept has gained significant attention and citations, indicating its impact among practitioners and academics. - One of the strengths of the CSV concept is its elevation of social goals to a strategic level, addressing the challenge of the declining legitimacy of business. - The CSV concept has been positively received by practitioners and scholars, offering a solution to the relevance of broader societal issues in corporate decision making. **Strength of CSV: Elevation of Social Goals to a Strategic Level** **The strength of the CSV concept lies in its ability to elevate social goals to a strategic level. This addresses the challenge of the declining legitimacy of business. By endorsing the strategic relevance of social goals, CSV acknowledges the importance of broader societal issues in corporate decision making. This is a positive response to critics who argue that management scholars have neglected the relevance of social goals and focused solely on corporate interests. CSV provides a solution that recognizes the importance of social goals in shaping business strategies and decision-making processes.** **\ CSV offers a solution to the relevance of broader societal issues in corporate decision making because it aims to create economic value by solving societal problems. It suggests that corporations can address social and environmental challenges while also generating profits. CSV encourages companies to integrate social impact into their business strategies, leading to win-win situations for both the company and society. However, critics argue that CSV may oversimplify complex issues and prioritize easy problems over systemic societal problems. Additionally, compliance with laws and ethical standards is presumed in CSV, which may not always be the case for corporations operating in different geopolitical contexts.** **Key Findings of the Article** 1. **The 2011 HBR paper by Porter and Kramer has received significantly more citations than other articles in the same issue, indicating its high impact and attention in the academic community.** 2. **An analysis of the citations shows that the majority of them are broadly positive, with only a small percentage being negative or critical of the concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV).** 3. **CSV stands out in the business and society field for its elevation of social goals to a strategic level, addressing the criticism that management scholars have not adequately examined the relevance of broader societal issues for corporate decision making.** 4. **The concept of CSV has gained popularity among practitioners and scholars due to its endorsement by Michael Porter, a well-known business strategist, and its ability to offer a solution to the challenge of declining business legitimacy.** 5. **However, critics argue that CSV does not offer much that is distinct from other concepts such as strategic CSR, social innovation, and instrumental stakeholder theory.** 6. **The article raises doubts about the claim that the HBR piece on CSV has triggered substantial changes in corporate behavior, as there is no realistic way to distinguish a CSV initiative from other similar initiatives.** 7. **The article highlights the effectiveness of democratic multi-stakeholder processes, such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative, as collaborative business solutions to social problems.** 8. **The authors of the article criticize Porter and Kramer for not adequately addressing the similarities between CSV and other existing literature, and for their optimistic view of the impact of CSV without sufficient evidence.** **These key findings suggest that while CSV has gained attention and support, there are also valid criticisms and questions about its distinctiveness and impact. The article emphasizes the importance of considering alternative approaches, such as democratic multi-stakeholder processes, in addressing social and environmental challenges.** **Key Conclusions from the Article** 1. The Porter and Kramer article on Creating Shared Value (CSV) has received a significant amount of attention and citations, making it an outlier in terms of scholarly impact. 2. The majority of citations for the Porter and Kramer article are positive or neutral, indicating a generally favorable reception in the academic literature. 3. CSV offers a distinct perspective by elevating social goals to a strategic level and addressing the relevance of broader societal issues for corporate decision-making. 4. The concept of CSV has strengths in competing for attention among other concepts in the business and society field. 5. The article criticizes Porter and Kramer for not adequately addressing the similarities between CSV and other concepts such as strategic CSR, social innovation, and instrumental stakeholder theory. 6. The article questions the claim that the Porter and Kramer article has triggered substantial changes in corporate behavior and argues for the effectiveness of alternative models based on democratic multi-stakeholder processes. 7. The analysis highlights the dominance of the economic purpose of the firm in business academia and the tendency to view CSR through the lens **\ ** Artikel 16 - Mosley, L. (2017). Workers' rights in global value chains ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Mosley, L. (2017). Workers' rights in global value chains: possibilities for protection and for peril. New Political Economy, 22(2), 153-168.] **Abstract**\ I consider the effect of **global supply chain production** -- in contrast to directly owned overseas production -- for labour rights in low- and middle-income countries. I develop a set of hypotheses regarding the **conditions** under which supply chain **workers** are most likely to experience improvements in their working conditions and procedural rights. In doing so, I highlight the importance of host country governments in the protection of labour rights: while private governance efforts have intensified in recent years, their success is conditional on local political actors' interests in the protection of workers' rights. Put differently, appropriate protections for labour require that the incentives of participating firms (foreign or domestic) and host country governments align. I also suggest how future research might best explore these dynamics, by focusing its attention at the firm and supply chain (rather than at the country) level. ***[PDF.ai]*** **Overview** This article discusses the impact of global supply chains on workers\' rights and working conditions. It highlights the role of lead firms in pressuring supplier firms to improve standards and the challenges faced by workers in developing countries. The article also emphasizes the importance of national governments in passing and enforcing labor laws that meet international standards. **Key points** - The ability of lead firms and consumers to observe labor conditions in supplier factories affects the protection of workers\' rights. - Corporate social responsibility initiatives have been more successful among lead firms producing branded, higher-end products. - Narrower and shallower supply chains make it easier for lead firms to hold supply chain partners accountable. - The structure of production and the concentration of supply chains have created governance challenges for labor-related issues. - Private governance-based approaches have limitations, and government actors play a crucial role in determining labor-related outcomes. - The rise of global supply chains has led to the consolidation and concentration of production stages. - The rationalization of supply chains can both pressure supplier firms to improve standards and transfer influence from lead to supplier firms. - The capacity of firms to relocate production or sourcing to other jurisdictions allows for regulatory arbitrage. - High-profile cases of labor rights violations have led to commitments to corporate social responsibility by multinational firms. - Monitoring labor conditions in supply chains is easier when supply chains are shorter and narrower. - Broad supply chains increase the risk of losing contracts, which can discourage workers from demanding greater protection or benefits. - National governments\' incentives to pass labor laws and cooperate with other governments are essential for protecting workers\' rights **The set of hypotheses regarding the conditions under which supply chain workers are most likely to experience improvements in their working conditions and procedural rights:** **Hypothesis 1: Influence of Lead Firms** Lead firms located in high-standard destinations are likely to create incentives for their supply chain partners to protect worker rights. This is because developed nations often make market access conditional on worker rights protection, and lead firms have material incentives to avoid reputational risk. Therefore, workers in supply chains connected to lead firms in high-standard destinations are more likely to experience improvements in their working conditions and procedural rights. **Hypothesis 2: Industry-specific Factors** The breadth and depth of supply chains may vary across industries, and this can affect the protection of worker rights. For example, industries with narrower supply chains, such as global supermarket chains, may have lead firms that can more easily enforce labor-related standards. However, it is important to note that a narrow supply chain does not guarantee better treatment for workers, especially at early stages of the supply chain. **Hypothesis 3: Government Incentives** The protection of worker rights in global supply chains is also influenced by the incentives and interests of national governments. Effective government regulation and enforcement are more likely when foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, shareholders, and consumers are attentive to labor rights and working conditions. Governments that prioritize the protection of workers are more likely to complement private sector governance efforts and create better outcomes for supply chain workers. **Hypothesis 4: Commodity-specific Factors** The dynamics of supply chains can also depend on the commodity (product) being produced or used. For example, if there are few sources of an important natural resource, its suppliers may have more leverage over lead firms. Additionally, technology, transportation, and coordination costs can affect supply chain dynamics. When such costs rise, lead firms may reduce the size of their supply chains, which can impact the protection of worker rights. These hypotheses provide a framework for understanding the conditions under which supply chain workers are most likely to experience improvements in their working conditions and procedural rights. Further research at the firm and supply chain level is needed to explore these dynamics and assess the effectiveness of different mechanisms for protecting worker rights in global supply chains. **Conclusion regarding the 4 hypotheses** The conclusion regarding the 4 hypotheses is that the protection of workers\' rights in global supply chains is difficult to achieve and presents challenges for causal and empirical analysis. The incentives of participating firms and host country governments need to align for appropriate labor protections. This alignment is more likely in industries and activities where the demand for workers exceeds the available supply, and where foreign governments, intergovernmental organizations, shareholders, and consumers are attentive to labor rights and working conditions. Effective government regulation and enforcement are crucial for improved labor standards. **Conclusion 1: Protection of workers\' rights in global supply chains is difficult and presents challenges for analysis.** The article highlights that protecting workers\' rights in global supply chains is a complex task and poses challenges for both causal and empirical analysis. It emphasizes the need for alignment between participating firms and host country governments to ensure appropriate labor protections. The demand for workers and their ability to negotiate for better conditions also play a role in determining the level of protection. **Conclusion 2: National governments play a crucial role in determining labor-related outcomes in supply chains.** The article argues that national governments are key players in determining labor-related outcomes in the context of global supply chains. The extent to which key political actors have incentives to pass labor laws, enforce international standards, and cooperate with other governments affects the protection of workers\' rights. The article suggests that private governance-based approaches have limitations, and effective government regulation and enforcement are crucial for improved labor standards. **Conclusion 3: The conditions under which workers are better protected in supply chains depend on governments\' incentives and interests.** The article emphasizes that understanding the conditions under which workers are better protected in global supply chains requires considering governments\' incentives and interests. When both the will and the ability to protect workers exist, governments are more likely to complement private sector governance efforts. The article suggests that factors such as democratic governance and political will can influence the level of respect for workers\' rights. **Conclusion 4: Private sector actors can influence labor-related outcomes in supply chains.** Private sector actors, particularly lead firms, can have incentives to address labor-related issues in supply chains. The article suggests that lead firms located in high-standard destinations create incentives for their supply chain partners to protect worker rights. Developed nations\' preferences for goods produced under high labor standards and the risk of reputational damage also contribute to private sector efforts to protect labor rights. However, these mechanisms may not be effective in low-margin, volume-based production. **Conclusion 5: Empirical research at the firm and supply chain level is needed to test hypotheses and understand labor-related outcomes in supply chains.** The article calls for empirical research that goes beyond cross-sectional time series analyses at the country or industry level. It suggests studying firm-level factors, multiple levels of independent variables, and comparing different supply chains to better understand the interaction of firm, industry, and government forces. The article also acknowledges that other factors, such as trade agreements and rights-based conditionality, can affect labor-related outcomes and require further investigation. Artikel 17 -- Optional: Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). ------------------------------------------------------------- [Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (2011). "Creating Shared Value," Harvard Business Review, 89/1-2, 62-77. (OPTIONAL)] The article by Porter and Kramer, titled \"Creating Shared Value,\" published in the Harvard Business Review, explores a concept that suggests businesses can simultaneously create economic value and social value by addressing societal needs through their core business operations. Porter and Kramer argue that traditional corporate social responsibility (CSR) approaches focus on mitigating harm or giving back to society through separate philanthropic initiatives. In contrast, creating shared value (CSV) integrates social and environmental considerations into the core business strategy and operations. The authors propose that businesses can identify opportunities to create shared value by aligning their business goals with societal needs. By addressing social or environmental challenges, companies can generate economic value while also benefiting society. This approach goes beyond simply minimizing negative impacts or complying with regulations. Porter and Kramer provide examples of companies that have successfully implemented CSV strategies. These examples demonstrate how businesses have identified new markets, improved productivity, enhanced brand reputation, and fostered innovation by addressing societal needs. The article also discusses the role of governments and civil society in supporting the creation of shared value. Porter and Kramer argue that collaboration between businesses, governments, and civil society organizations is crucial for addressing complex societal challenges and creating sustainable shared value. Overall, the article introduces the concept of creating shared value as a strategic approach for businesses to simultaneously create economic value and address societal needs. It emphasizes the importance of integrating social and environmental considerations into core business operations and highlights the benefits that businesses can achieve by adopting this approach. Artikel 18 Waddock, S. (2008). ------------------------------ [Waddock, S. (2008). Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 87-108.] The article by Waddock, titled \"Building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility,\" published in the Academy of Management Perspectives, explores the need for a new institutional infrastructure to promote and support corporate responsibility. Waddock argues that traditional institutional structures are inadequate for addressing the complex social and environmental challenges faced by corporations. She suggests that a new institutional infrastructure is necessary to foster corporate responsibility and sustainability. The author discusses various components of this new institutional infrastructure. This includes the need for new norms, values, and beliefs that prioritize social and environmental considerations alongside economic goals. Waddock emphasizes the importance of shifting the prevailing mindset from a focus solely on shareholder value to a broader stakeholder orientation. Furthermore, Waddock highlights the need for new governance mechanisms that encourage responsible behavior and hold corporations accountable. This may involve reforms in corporate governance practices, such as increased transparency, stakeholder engagement, and the incorporation of sustainability metrics into performance evaluations. The article also discusses the role of education and research in building this new institutional infrastructure. Waddock argues for the inclusion of corporate responsibility and sustainability topics in business curricula and the promotion of interdisciplinary research to generate knowledge and insights in these areas. Waddock emphasizes that building a new institutional infrastructure for corporate responsibility requires collaboration between various stakeholders, including businesses, governments, civil society organizations, and academia. She suggests that partnerships and collective action are necessary to drive systemic change and create a more sustainable and responsible business environment. In summary, the article by Waddock explores the need for a new institutional infrastructure to promote corporate responsibility. It discusses the importance of shifting norms and values, implementing new governance mechanisms, and integrating corporate responsibility into education and research. The article emphasizes the need for collaboration and collective action to drive systemic change in business practices. Lecture 4 ========= Artikel 19: Curran, D. (2018a). ------------------------------- **Abstract**\ In an age of accelerating wealth at the very top and accelerating risks at the bottom, there\ is a clear disjunction between the flow of social benefits and social damages produced by\ different actors and their share of these respective benefits and damages. Yet, the specific\ processes that generate the dualization of tracks of accumulation of rewards or accumula-\ tion of risks and precarity are still up for debate. In tackling this dual process in a way that\ is attuned to the critical contribution of contemporary forms of the law to this uneven accu-\ mulation of wealth and of risks, this paper focuses on organized irresponsibility---where\ individuals can cumulatively contribute to risks, but avoid individual culpability---and how\ relations of organized irresponsibility provide extensive opportunities for risk arbitrage.\ Risk arbitrage is correspondingly a process where actors, whether it be individuals or\ larger organizations, can produce social risk, appropriate benefit from these risks, and dis-\ proportionately avoid the consequences of the risks so as to benefit from the overall "cycle\ of reward and risk"---even if society as a whole is worse off. The paper identifies organized\ irresponsibility as fundamentally undergirded by mismatches between existing configura-\ tions of law and the existing complexity of the processes of the production of social goods\ and risks. This paper proceeds to show how gaps in the law enable the organized irrespon-\ sibility principle---that given a level of risk production, the greater the number of actors\ involved and the greater complexity between causes and the risk's impacts, the less overall\ culpability that tends to be assigned. It then shows how the organized irresponsibility prin-\ ciple enables relationships of risk arbitrage that intensify contemporary risk and inequality **Overview** This article discusses the concept of organized irresponsibility and its relationship with risk arbitrage. It explores how certain individuals and organizations benefit from taking risks while avoiding the negative consequences. The article argues that the law plays a crucial role in enabling this organized irresponsibility and highlights the impact it has on intensifying inequalities and excessive risk. The author suggests that further empirical investigation is needed to fully understand the scope of these processes. **Key points** - The article examines the gap between harm and injury and how the law contributes to this gap, allowing for organized irresponsibility. - Risk arbitrage is identified as a key impact of organized irresponsibility, leading to the intensification of risk levels. - The article highlights how elites in protected positions benefit from risk production while avoiding the majority of the damages. - It argues that the complex causality within corporations makes it difficult to assign responsibility to specific individuals, contributing to the avoidance of criminal responsibility. - The article emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of these processes and their implications for societal inequalities and excessive risk. **\ ** **Organized Irresponsibility** Organized irresponsibility refers to a relationship between multiple agents, such as individuals, organizations, or nation-states, where their collective actions generate risks and damages for others. However, each individual agent is able to minimize or avoid culpability for these impacts due to the difficulty in tracing the overall damage to specific harmful actions of any one agent. This concept highlights the ability of individuals to contribute to risks while avoiding individual responsibility for the consequences. **Risk Arbitrage** Risk arbitrage refers to a strategy in finance where an investor takes advantage of price differences in two different markets to generate profit. It involves finding two similar commodities or investments in different markets that are priced differently. By purchasing the commodity in one market and selling it in another, the investor can make a risk-less profit, as the focus is solely on price differentials. Risk arbitrage allows investors to amplify risk levels to increase the value of their revenue stream without bearing the risk themselves. This strategy is often utilized by senior employees in finance to benefit from the amplification of financial risk while avoiding responsibility for potential losses. **Key Conclusions of the Article** 1. The article critiques the hypostatization of organizations and highlights the gap between harm and injury in contemporary configurations of law. 2. It argues that the principle of organized irresponsibility enables relationships of risk arbitrage, intensifying contemporary risk and inequality. 3. The literature on growing risks and growing inequalities remains primarily independent of each other, despite being two key trends of the age. 4. The article emphasizes the need to bring together the critical study of law with the social science of risk to understand the shifting gaps in culpability and their contribution to intensifying inequalities and excessive risk. 5. The role of law in enabling and not preventing systematic harms from reckless development becomes an exigent issue in the context of multiple crises of capitalism. 6. The article suggests that the gaps in legal governance surrounding complex forms of risk causation are at the heart of these issues. 7. It argues that the study of risk inequalities can be extended to various specific environmental inequalities, demonstrating their generalizability. 8. The article highlights the importance of empirical investigations and the value of empirically oriented theory in understanding the productivity of risk production for elites. 9. It references various authors and works that contribute to the understanding of risk, inequality, and the role of law, such as Weber, Beck, Giddens, and Pearce. These are the key conclusions drawn from the given document content. **\ ** Artikel 20: Curran, D. (2018b). Organized irresponsibility and the contradictions of collective agency ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ **[Curran, D. (2018a). The organized irresponsibility principle and risk arbitrage]** **Abstract**\ In an age of accelerating wealth at the very top and accelerating risks at the bottom, there\ is a clear disjunction between the flow of social benefits and social damages produced by\ different actors and their share of these respective benefits and damages. Yet, the specific\ processes that generate the dualization of tracks of accumulation of rewards or accumula-\ tion of risks and precarity are still up for debate. In tackling this dual process in a way that\ is attuned to the critical contribution of contemporary forms of the law to this uneven accu-\ mulation of wealth and of risks, this paper focuses on organized irresponsibility---where\ individuals can cumulatively contribute to risks, but avoid individual culpability---and how\ relations of organized irresponsibility provide extensive opportunities for risk arbitrage.\ Risk arbitrage is correspondingly a process where actors, whether it be individuals or\ larger organizations, can produce social risk, appropriate benefit from these risks, and dis-\ proportionately avoid the consequences of the risks so as to benefit from the overall "cycle\ of reward and risk"---even if society as a whole is worse off. The paper identifies organized\ irresponsibility as fundamentally undergirded by mismatches between existing configura-\ tions of law and the existing complexity of the processes of the production of social goods\ and risks. This paper proceeds to show how gaps in the law enable the organized irrespon-\ sibility principle---that given a level of risk production, the greater the number of actors\ involved and the greater complexity between causes and the risk's impacts, the less overall\ culpability that tends to be assigned. It then shows how the organized irresponsibility prin-\ ciple enables relationships of risk arbitrage that intensify contemporary risk and inequality **Overview** This article discusses the concept of \"organized irresponsibility\" in the context of corporate crime. It explores the work of Frank Pearce and his analysis of the criminogenic nature of corporations. The article argues that the individualistic nature of legal responsibility and the ability of corporations to create collective agency contribute to the problem of organized irresponsibility. It also suggests that a meeting of the sociology of risk and the study of corporate crime can contribute to rethinking the collective and individual dimensions of the law. **Key points** - Pearce\'s work highlights that corporations provide examples of organized crime in America and that criminal activity is just one of many potential strategies by corporate actors. - The analysis of corporate \"organized irresponsibility\" focuses on how corporations create structures of relationships that enable them to avoid responsibility for damages caused by their actions. - The article suggests that reevaluating how the law institutionalizes collective and individual action and responsibility is crucial in addressing problems of inequality and global systemic risk. - The concept of \"organized irresponsibility\" has been used by other scholars, such as C.W. Mills, to describe systemic impunity and the mindlessness of the powerful in American corporate power. - The article also discusses Ulrich Beck\'s concept of \"organized irresponsibility\" and its potential to illuminate various topics, including corporate crime. However, some modifications to Beck\'s understanding of the concept are necessary. **Dean Curran\'s Criticism of Ulrich Beck\'s Concept of Organized Irresponsibility** 1. **Neglect of Power Relations**: Curran argues that Beck\'s conceptualization of organized irresponsibility fails to adequately consider the imbrication of power relations within this phenomenon. According to Curran, power relations are intertwined with organized irresponsibility and should be given more attention in the analysis. 2. **Totalizing Uncontrollability**: Curran criticizes Beck\'s view that risk emerging from organized irresponsibility is completely uncontrollable. Curran suggests that even in complex networks of causation and out-of-control effects, there is significant scope for modifying one\'s risk position, indicating that total uncontrollability is overstated. 3. **Inadequate Addressing of Contemporary Law**: Curran highlights Beck\'s argument that contemporary law does not adequately address the complexity of causal chains and the generation of organized irresponsibility. However, Curran points out that Beck\'s theory of unintended social risk production as a critique of existing legal frameworks remains primarily unexplored in the existing literature. 4. **Limited Theoretical Articulation**: Curran notes that while Beck\'s concept of organized irresponsibility is evocative as a metaphor, its theoretical articulation is limited. Curran suggests that Beck\'s focus on institutional logics neglects how interests are intertwined with the complex logics of causation and avoidance of liability associated with organized irresponsibility. Overall, Curran\'s criticism of Beck\'s concept of organized irresponsibility revolves around the neglect of power relations, the totalizing view of uncontrollability, the inadequate addressing of contemporary law, and the limited theoretical articulation. **Key Conclusions of the Article** 1. The article highlights the existence of a systematic gap between the power to produce risk and the power to assign culpability for risk in contemporary organized irresponsibility. 2. It argues that the current criminal law\'s focus on intention-act-consequence is inadequate for addressing corporate crimes, as it fails to capture the organizational production of crimes and the complex nature of corporate-caused harms. 3. The analysis of corporate \"organized irresponsibility\" emphasizes the need to reevaluate how the law institutionalizes forms of collective and individual action and responsibility. 4. The article suggests that a meeting of the sociology of risk and the critical study of corporate crime can significantly contribute to rethinking the collective and individual dimensions of the law. 5. It also discusses the advantages of aggregation in facing an individualistic legal theory of causation and highlights the challenges in ascribing legal responsibility to large corporations for significant harms caused. 6. The article proposes utilizing Beck\'s conceptual tools to analyze contemporary risk and organized irresponsibility, while also revising Beck\'s interpretation to consider the imbrication of power relations. 7. It concludes that there is a social process at play in the responsibility for harms created by corporations, and that corporate crimes should be understood as organizational crimes rather than solely driven by personal motives. **Key Conclusions of the Article (2, herhaling)** 1. The article critiques the hypostatization of organizations and highlights the gap between harm and injury in contemporary configurations of law. 2. It argues that the principle of organized irresponsibility enables relationships of risk arbitrage, intensifying contemporary risk and inequality. 3. The literature on growing risks and growing inequalities remains primarily independent of each other, despite being two key trends of the age. 4. The article emphasizes the need to bring together the critical study of law with the social science of risk to understand the shifting gaps in culpability and their contribution to intensifying inequalities and excessive risk. 5. The role of law in enabling and not preventing systematic harms from reckless development becomes an exigent issue in the context of multiple crises of capitalism. 6. The article suggests that the gaps in legal governance surrounding complex forms of risk causation are at the heart of these issues. 7. It argues that the study of risk inequalities can be extended to various specific environmental inequalities, demonstrating their generalizability. 8. The article highlights the importance of empirical investigations and the value of empirically oriented theory in understanding the productivity of risk production for elites. 9. It references various authors and works that contribute to the understanding of risk, inequality, and the role of law, such as Weber, Beck, Giddens, and Pearce. These are the key conclusions drawn from the given document content. Artikel 21: Passas, N. (2005). Lawful but awful:'Legal corporate crimes' ------------------------------------------------------------------------ **Abstract\ **By concentrating on what is officially defined as illegal or criminal, a more serious threat to society is left out. This threat is caused by corporate practices that are within the letter of the law and yet have multiple adverse social consequences. Thus, just when more effective regulatory action and oversight is imperative, the global neo-liberal agenda and practice promotes de-regulation and a further reduction of the role of the state. Not only does this have criminogenic consequences of its own, it furthers types of misconduct undermining democratic processes and sustainable economic growth **Overview** This article discusses the need for a wide-ranging audience to address legal crimes and prevent future consequences. It emphasizes the importance of convincing law makers and corporations to act in their best interest and change social attitudes. The article also explores the challenges of controlling externalities without destroying industries and suggests measures such as transparency, regulation, accountability, and reshaping cultural norms. **Key points** - The audience for addressing legal crimes must be wide-ranging, including law makers and corporations. - Changing social attitudes is crucial to prevent future consequences. - Controlling externalities without destroying industries is a challenge. - Transparency, regulation, accountability, and reshaping cultural norms are necessary measures. **Corporate Crimes without Lawbreaking** In the document, the author discusses the concept of \"corporate crimes without lawbreaking.\" These are practices by industries that are entirely lawful but have harmful consequences. The author argues that these practices can be more damaging to the overall economy than traditional crimes. Examples of such industries include factory farming, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, offshore financial institutions, and the antiquities business. These industries may provide legal and desirable goods or services but generate hazardous waste or socially undesirable consequences. Another category is that of \"facilitators,\" such as law, accounting, and lobbying firms, which assist other industries in externalizing costs and keeping practices legal. Lastly, there are industries that deliver privatized public functions but do so in ways that produce adverse consequences, such as private security firms and private corrections corporations. These industries may create conflicts of interest with the public good and negatively impact societies in terms of financial and human capital. **Types of costs** The article mentions several different types of costs associated with legal corporate crimes: 1. **Physical costs** 2. **Financial costs** 3. **Social costs** 4. **Unquantifiable externalities** Firstly, there are physical costs, which refer to the harm caused to individuals and communities as a result of corporate practices. For example, the tobacco industry is cited as causing significant pain and suffering, with an estimated 4 million deaths per year attributed to tobacco products. Secondly, there are financial costs, which refer to the economic impact of corporate practices. For example, the collapse of financial institutions due to de-regulation and lax accounting methods can have significant financial costs, as seen in the Savings and Loan institutions disaster in the US, which cost taxpayers between \$500 billion and \$1 trillion. Thirdly, there are social costs, which refer to the impact of corporate practices on society as a whole. For example, the establishment of offshore shelters by US exporting companies to exempt profits from taxation has been challenged by the EU, as it is seen as unfair and undermines the global economy. Similarly, the protection of certain industries by the EU through export subsidies and import levies has been criticized for distorting trade and hindering economic growth. Finally, the article also mentions unquantifiable externalities, which are the ill-effects of crimes without lawbreaking and lawful but awful corporate practices that cannot be expressed in numbers. These include the cost of unfairness, the dislocation and dismemberment of cultural monuments, and the loss of opportunity to understand past civilizations and societies due to the looting of artwork and the illegal antiquity trade. **Key Findings of the Article** 1. Industries often follow procedures and act within legal boundaries, but the overall impact is negative. 2. Corporate power, influence on policy makers, and shaping public opinion contribute to harmful practices. 3. Rationalizations and cultural attitudes normalize harmful practices. 4. Short-term vision and resistance to taxation and government intervention hinder efforts to control enterprises and limit externalities. 5. The audience for addressing legal crimes should include law makers, corporations, and the general public. 6. Changing social attitudes and redefining legitimacy are crucial for remedial actions. 7. Demonstrating the direct impact of externalities on individuals and communities can generate public support. 8. Some industries engage in large-scale anti-social activities, producing hidden externalities. 9. The opportunity costs resulting from amoral or morally bankrupt corporations are inestimable. 10. The article suggests the need for an in-depth analysis of why certain industries engage in harmful practices and what hampers society\'s efforts to control them. **Conclusion: moving forward** The conclusion emphasizes the need for a wide-ranging audience to address harmful corporate practices. It suggests that legal crimes should be addressed not only by preaching to those already concerned but also by making the case to law makers. It highlights the importance of convincing corporations to act in their best interest in both the short and long term. The conclusion also emphasizes the need to change social attitudes and redefine legitimacy, as well as the importance of demonstrating the direct impact of externalities on the public, policy makers, and corporate executives. Overall, the conclusion emphasizes the importance of widespread support, changing laws, and addressing social, legal, and economic asymmetries to move forward in holding corporations accountable. **\ ** Lecture 5 ========= Artikel 22 Mitchell et al. (1997) Stakeholder Salience ------------------------------------------------------ [Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle & D.J. Wood (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts; Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.] The article by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood, titled \"Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts,\" published in the Academy of Management Review, presents a theoretical framework for understanding stakeholder identification and salience within organizations. The authors argue that stakeholders play a critical role in influencing organizational decision-making and performance. They propose a three-step process for stakeholder identification and salience. First, the authors suggest that managers need to recognize and understand the various groups and individuals that can affect or are affected by the organization\'s activities. This involves identifying both primary stakeholders (those with a direct relationship and significant influence on the organization) and secondary stakeholders (those who may have an indirect impact or less influence). Second, the authors propose that managers need to assess the salience of different stakeholders. Salience refers to the importance or priority assigned to stakeholders based on their power, legitimacy, and urgency. Power refers to the ability of stakeholders to influence the organization, legitimacy refers to the perceived appropriateness of stakeholders\' claims, and urgency refers to the time sensitivity of stakeholders\' claims. Lastly, the authors suggest that managers need to integrate stakeholder salience into decision-making processes. This involves considering the interests and concerns of different stakeholders and balancing them with organizational goals and objectives. The article also discusses the implications of stakeholder identification and salience for organizational strategy and performance. The authors argue that effective stakeholder management can lead to improved stakeholder relationships, enhanced reputation, and ultimately, better organizational outcomes. In summary, the article by Mitchell, Agle, and Wood presents a theoretical framework for understanding stakeholder identification and salience. It emphasizes the importance of recognizing and prioritizing stakeholders based on their power, legitimacy, and urgency. The article highlights the implications of effective stakeholder management for organizational strategy and performance. Artikel 23 Scherer & Palazzo (2007) Corporate responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------ [Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096-1120.] The article by Scherer and Palazzo, titled \"Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective,\" published in the Academy of Management Review, explores the concept of corporate responsibility from a political standpoint, drawing on the ideas of philosopher Jürgen Habermas. The authors argue that traditional conceptions of corporate responsibility focus on voluntary actions by businesses to address social and environmental issues. However, they propose a shift towards a political conception that considers the broader societal context in which corporations operate. Drawing on Habermas\'s theory of communicative action, the authors suggest that corporate responsibility should be understood as an ongoing process of dialogue and negotiation between businesses and society. This perspective emphasizes the importance of open and inclusive deliberation to address societal challenges and ensure the legitimacy of corporate actions. Scherer and Palazzo discuss three key dimensions of the political conception of corporate responsibility. First, they emphasize the need for corporations to engage in public discourse and provide transparent information to enable informed decision-making. This requires businesses to go beyond public relations efforts and engage in meaningful dialogue with stakeholders. Second, the authors highlight the importance of stakeholder participation in decision-making processes. They argue that corporations should involve a diverse range of stakeholders in shaping corporate responsibility initiatives to ensure the inclusion of different perspectives and interests. Lastly, the authors emphasize the need for institutional arrangements that enable and support meaningful dialogue and deliberation. They argue that regulatory frameworks and civil society organizations play a crucial role in creating the conditions for effective corporate responsibility and holding corporations accountable. The article also discusses the challenges and limitations of adopting a political conception of corporate responsibility, including power imbalances, conflicts of interest, and the potential for co-optation. In summary, the article by Scherer and Palazzo proposes a political conception of corporate responsibility that emphasizes dialogue, stakeholder participation, and institutional arrangements. It draws on Habermasian ideas of communicative action to argue for a more inclusive and deliberative approach to corporate responsibility. The article highlights the importance of transparency, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory frameworks in promoting responsible corporate behavior. Artikel 24 Schiavone (2021). Digital business models and ridesharing for value co-creation in healthcare -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **Abstract** The current advancements in digital technologies offer new opportunities for designing and modelling digital business models. In many industries, particularly in healthcare, coordinating and managing relationships with different stakeholders are well-known problems that organizations regularly face. Despite the increasing theoretical and practical relevance of digital business models in healthcare, to date, there is a lack of specific research\ focused adequately on how value is created, delivered and captured for the various stakeholders in centrally mediated platforms within the healthcare ecosystem. By conducting an exploratory qualitative analysis, this study explores the case of Saluber, an Italian digital start-up offering ridesharing services for non-emergency medical transportation. The results show a series of various service value drivers, single-level benefits and community-level outcomes by which the central mediator of this sharing economy platform creates, delivers and captures value for its various types of stakeholders. These aspects are made available by the integration of digital business models. A multilevel framework of healthcare ecosystem rearranging was developed, which expands the value co-creation process beyond collaboration among various types of stakeholders and emphasizes the outcome of the digitalized network. Implications for scholars and managers are offered. ***[ChatPDF]*** This article explores the potential of digital business models and ridesharing platforms to create value for multiple stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem. The authors use a case study approach to analyze the role of a central mediator in a sharing economy platform for non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services. The study finds that digital technologies can enable the creation of novel business models that create and capture value in new ways. Ridesharing platforms can improve access to healthcare services for patients, reduce costs for healthcare organizations, and create new opportunities for value co-creation among multiple stakeholders. The authors identify several key factors that contribute to successful value co-creation in multi-stakeholder ecosystems, including trust, transparency, and collaboration. They also highlight the importance of regulatory frameworks and institutional support for digital healthcare services. Overall, the study suggests that digital technologies and sharing economy platforms have the potential to transform healthcare services and create value for multiple stakeholders. However, there are also challenges that need to be addressed, such as privacy concerns, data security, and regulatory compliance. The authors call for further research to explore these issues and develop new frameworks for digital healthcare services. *Key factors to successful value co-creation* The authors of this article identify several key factors that contribute to successful value co-creation in multi-stakeholder ecosystems, including trust, transparency, and collaboration. Firstly, **trust** is essential for building relationships between stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem. Trust enables stakeholders to share information, resources, and expertise, and to work together towards common goals. Trust can be built through open communication, shared values, and a commitment to mutual benefit. Secondly, **transparency** is important for creating a shared understanding of the goals, processes, and outcomes of value co-creation. Transparency enables stakeholders to monitor and evaluate the performance of the ecosystem, and to identify areas for improvement. Transparency can be achieved through clear communication, open data sharing, and accountability mechanisms. Thirdly, **collaboration** is essential for creating value in multi-stakeholder ecosystems. Collaboration enables stakeholders to leverage their complementary strengths and resources, and to co-create innovative solutions that meet the needs of all stakeholders. Collaboration can be fostered through shared goals, mutual respect, and a willingness to learn from each other. In summary, trust, transparency, and collaboration are key factors that contribute to successful value co-creation in multi-stakeholder ecosystems. These factors enable stakeholders to work together towards common goals, to share information and resources, and to create innovative solutions that benefit all stakeholders. ***[PDF.Ai]*** **Multilevel Framework of Healthcare Ecosystem Rearranging** The multilevel framework of healthcare ecosystem rearranging is a conceptual model that expands the value co-creation process in the healthcare industry. It goes beyond collaboration among various stakeholders and emphasizes the outcome of the digitalized network. This framework highlights how value is created, delivered, and captured through a centrally mediated platform based on the principles of the sharing economy (SE). It shows the interaction between the digital multi-stakeholder ecosystem and the industry offline multi-stakeholder ecosystem. The framework recognizes different levels within the healthcare ecosystem, including the macro level (government agencies, health funding bodies), meso level (hospitals, clinics, local health support agencies), and micro level (clinicians, patients, health professionals). It identifies the various actors involved in value creation, such as intermediary centers, carriers, healthcare professionals, public utility companies, and central mediators of the SE platform. The multilevel framework also highlights the reconceptualization of the portfolio of services offered to end users, including non-emergency medical transportation (NEMT) services, disabled transport, and physiotherapy treatments. It emphasizes the importance of central mediators in facilitating value co-creation dynamics among the different stakeholders in the healthcare ecosystem. Overall, the multilevel framework of healthcare ecosystem rearranging provides a comprehensive understanding of how value is created, delivered, and captured in the healthcare industry through the SE platform. It offers insights into the role of different actors and the potential for innovation and collaboration in improving healthcare services. **Service Value Drivers:** The service value drivers in the healthcare ecosystem are aimed at innovating the current healthcare logistics by bringing together multiple actors in a single digital multi-stakeholder ecosystem. These drivers focus on resource sharing and professional support, with the goal of improving healthcare professionals\' activities and providing them with the necessary information to allocate the best available resources for patients. **Single-Level Benefits:** Participating in the digital network and SE-based platforms offers single-level benefits to healthcare professionals. These benefits include greater efficiency, lower costs, and faster service delivery. By leveraging the SE platform, healthcare organizations can expand their range of services and improve the overall performance of the healthcare ecosystem. **Community-Level Outcomes:** The community-level outcomes of the SE platform in the healthcare ecosystem involve the co-creation of value among various stakeholders. Through the centralized mediators in the ecosystem, participants can access shared value and establish value co-creation dynamics. This collaboration leads to a re-conceptualization of the healthcare industry, enabling the design of different healthcare practices and activities to be performed more effectively. **Compared to Classical Stakeholder Theory (Mitchel)** In comparison to classical stakeholder theory, the article adopts a multi-stakeholder ecosystem perspective, recognizing the network nature of relationships and the complex set of subcultures within the ecosystem. It acknowledges the interdependencies between different groups of stakeholders and the need for coordination and management of these relationships. The article also highlights the role of digital platforms in enabling value co-creation and improving relationships between stakeholders in the healthcare context. Overall, the article provides insights into the unique dynamics of stakeholders on digital platforms and their impact on value creation and delivery ***[\ ]*** ***[Summary Stuvia]*** **Stakeholder theory in digitalization context** Impact of digitalization - Due to the rise of digital technology, stakeholders become increasingly distributed - We are/can be always connected through digital technology - Stakeholders can be increasingly distributed across the globe, in different time zones, etc. - Easier for stakeholders to influence discourse around organisations through social media - Rise of different platforms -- how to manage? Keep platform control (e.g., Apple) ![](media/image6.png) Or let others control the platform (e.g., Android[)] Artikel 25 Scott (2008) Three pillars of institutions ----------------------------------------------------- [Scott, R. (2008) Crafting an Analytic Framework I: Three pillars of institutions; In: Scott, R. (2008) Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks: Sage), 55-74] The article \"Crafting an Analytic Framework I

Literature Summary - Organizations and Society PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue