This contribution explores the growing interest in transnational corporate accountability, arising out of the need to build trust in corporations. Emerging cultures of accountability and compliance, among other things, has driven the digitalization of corporate governance and the emergence of a polycentric order of transnational regulations (e.g., human rights due diligence instruments). While widely recognized conceptions of trust inform systems of decentralized, digital governance, the principles and practices of such governance recasts trust and its relationship to accountability within corporations. This contribution argues that this leads to “contradictions” between traditional systems of faith in the trustworthiness of the enterprise and its principal (human) and the emerging faith in the trustworthiness of systems of accountability from which enterprise trust can be objectively measured against an ideal-type, data-based metric. Trust in enterprises, then, become a function of trust in trust accountability systems. Competition among such trust accountability systems and the norms from which trust is measured produces polycentric regimes of transnational corporate accountability, and of measuring trustworthiness, that simultaneously enhances (through systems of exogenous objectification) and undermines (through incompatible standards and methods of trustworthiness) enterprise trust. Part I describes the problem and the challenge, one that arises from the near simultaneous shift in cultural expectations about trust from trust in character to trust in measurement, and the rise of cultures of data driven technologically complicated systems of compliance and accountability. Part Two then considers the transformation brought by efforts to respond that that challenge. These consisted of three closely interlinked trajectories: digitalization, complex compliance-accountability regimes, and the emergence of platforms as the space within which collectives of consumers and producers of governance and trust related data could interact. Part three then examines the consequences of the structures that have emerged as a product of those trajectories. The first is the constitution of polycentric governance standards around which entities must now navigate and the second is the detachment of trust from the entity that is its subject. That is, it considers the rise of trust platforms as the autonomous pint of engagement through which the trustworthiness of corporate governance is negotiated.
{"title":"Trust Platforms: The Digitalization of Corporate Governance and the Transformation of Trust in Polycentric Space","authors":"L. Backer","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3895425","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3895425","url":null,"abstract":"This contribution explores the growing interest in transnational corporate accountability, arising out of the need to build trust in corporations. Emerging cultures of accountability and compliance, among other things, has driven the digitalization of corporate governance and the emergence of a polycentric order of transnational regulations (e.g., human rights due diligence instruments). While widely recognized conceptions of trust inform systems of decentralized, digital governance, the principles and practices of such governance recasts trust and its relationship to accountability within corporations. This contribution argues that this leads to “contradictions” between traditional systems of faith in the trustworthiness of the enterprise and its principal (human) and the emerging faith in the trustworthiness of systems of accountability from which enterprise trust can be objectively measured against an ideal-type, data-based metric. Trust in enterprises, then, become a function of trust in trust accountability systems. Competition among such trust accountability systems and the norms from which trust is measured produces polycentric regimes of transnational corporate accountability, and of measuring trustworthiness, that simultaneously enhances (through systems of exogenous objectification) and undermines (through incompatible standards and methods of trustworthiness) enterprise trust. Part I describes the problem and the challenge, one that arises from the near simultaneous shift in cultural expectations about trust from trust in character to trust in measurement, and the rise of cultures of data driven technologically complicated systems of compliance and accountability. Part Two then considers the transformation brought by efforts to respond that that challenge. These consisted of three closely interlinked trajectories: digitalization, complex compliance-accountability regimes, and the emergence of platforms as the space within which collectives of consumers and producers of governance and trust related data could interact. Part three then examines the consequences of the structures that have emerged as a product of those trajectories. The first is the constitution of polycentric governance standards around which entities must now navigate and the second is the detachment of trust from the entity that is its subject. That is, it considers the rise of trust platforms as the autonomous pint of engagement through which the trustworthiness of corporate governance is negotiated.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131045996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Questions of ethics in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in development economics need greater attention and a wider perspective. RCTs are meant to be governed by the three principles laid out in the Belmont Report, but often violated them, e.g. when local laws are flouted. In other cases, the framework of the Belmont Report itself has proved inadequate: for instance, when there are unintended outcomes or adverse events for which no-one is held accountable. Primarily using RCTs conducted in India, this paper highlights eight areas of concern. RCTs also have a disproportionate influence on shaping research agendas and on policy. Though ethical issues have been raised, there has been little engagement from the RCT community – a manifestation of its power in the profession. As current safeguards (such as oversight by Institutional Review Boards) have failed to protect human subjects, the concluding section discusses possible ways to resolve these issues.
{"title":"Some Questions of Ethics in RCTs","authors":"R. Khera","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3780908","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3780908","url":null,"abstract":"Questions of ethics in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) in development economics need greater attention and a wider perspective. RCTs are meant to be governed by the three principles laid out in the Belmont Report, but often violated them, e.g. when local laws are flouted. In other cases, the framework of the Belmont Report itself has proved inadequate: for instance, when there are unintended outcomes or adverse events for which no-one is held accountable. Primarily using RCTs conducted in India, this paper highlights eight areas of concern. RCTs also have a disproportionate influence on shaping research agendas and on policy. Though ethical issues have been raised, there has been little engagement from the RCT community – a manifestation of its power in the profession. As current safeguards (such as oversight by Institutional Review Boards) have failed to protect human subjects, the concluding section discusses possible ways to resolve these issues.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125464709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Spanish Abstract: El reto al que las empresas se enfrentan con la crisis del Covid-19 es conciliar resiliencia empresarial con responsabilidad social. El riesgo es poner una vision deformada de la resiliencia por encima de la propia integridad. Para evitar este riesgo y sacar el mayor partido a la presente crisis, proponemos tres actitudes o criterios de accion que nacen de la responsabilidad social corporativa y que pueden ayudar a salvaguardar la propia integridad en un momento como el actual: reflexionar sobre el sentido de la propia mision empresarial, fomentar una comunicacion transparente que involucre a todos los stakeholders, y buscar siempre ser consistentes en cualquier decision que se tome. Los diez principios del Pacto Mundial pueden servir de guia para evaluar la consistencia de las empresas socialmente responsables durante este periodo English Abstract: The challenge that companies face with the COVID-19 crisis is to reconcile business resilience with social responsibility. The risk is putting a distorted view of resilience above integrity itself. To avoid this risk and make the most of the current crisis, we propose three attitudes or action criteria that stem from corporate social responsibility and that can help safeguard one's integrity at a time like today: reflect on the meaning of own business mission, promote transparent communication that involves all stakeholders, and always seek to be consistent in any decision that is made. The ten principles of the Global Compact can serve as a guide to assess the consistency of socially responsible companies during this period.
摘要:在Covid-19危机中，企业面临的挑战是协调企业弹性与社会责任。风险在于将对韧性的扭曲看法置于诚信本身之上。为避免这种风险最大,危机本打算利用三个态度或企业社会责任行动出生标准可以协助保护一下如目前的完整性:反思企业方面的任务,促进透明沟通,涉及所有利益攸关方,并找寻随时可能包括采取的任何决定。《全球契约》的十项原则可作为评估这一时期社会责任企业一致性的指南。英文摘要:企业面临COVID-19危机的挑战是协调企业弹性与社会责任。风险在于将一种扭曲的弹性观点置于诚信之上。并避免this risk and make the most of the current危机,we propose三的态度或行动标准that干细胞from corporate social responsibility and that can help侦查one’s完整性at a time像today: 12 on the意义上开办自己的企业使命,促进死刑communication,涉及所有利益攸关方,and always失所To be in any decision that is made前后一致。《全球契约》的十项原则可作为评估这一时期社会责任公司一致性的指南。
{"title":"Reforzar la integridad empresarial ante la crisis del Covid-19 (Strengthening Business Integrity in the Face of the COVID-19 Crisis)","authors":"Joan Fontrodona, Philip Muller","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3571706","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3571706","url":null,"abstract":"Spanish Abstract: El reto al que las empresas se enfrentan con la crisis del Covid-19 es conciliar resiliencia empresarial con responsabilidad social. El riesgo es poner una vision deformada de la resiliencia por encima de la propia integridad. Para evitar este riesgo y sacar el mayor partido a la presente crisis, proponemos tres actitudes o criterios de accion que nacen de la responsabilidad social corporativa y que pueden ayudar a salvaguardar la propia integridad en un momento como el actual: reflexionar sobre el sentido de la propia mision empresarial, fomentar una comunicacion transparente que involucre a todos los stakeholders, y buscar siempre ser consistentes en cualquier decision que se tome. Los diez principios del Pacto Mundial pueden servir de guia para evaluar la consistencia de las empresas socialmente responsables durante este periodo \u0000 \u0000English Abstract: The challenge that companies face with the COVID-19 crisis is to reconcile business resilience with social responsibility. The risk is putting a distorted view of resilience above integrity itself. To avoid this risk and make the most of the current crisis, we propose three attitudes or action criteria that stem from corporate social responsibility and that can help safeguard one's integrity at a time like today: reflect on the meaning of own business mission, promote transparent communication that involves all stakeholders, and always seek to be consistent in any decision that is made. The ten principles of the Global Compact can serve as a guide to assess the consistency of socially responsible companies during this period.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125641897","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dialogue and intellectual trade between Islamic economics and conventional economics has been active and mutually beneficial for more than 40 years. I present some concrete examples of this in the current paper. I then assess recent calls for a complete break of Islamic economics with conventional economics, and find them clearly inconsistent with Islam’s actual approach to culture and institutions in preIslamic Arabia. The Islamic approach shuns blanket acceptance or rejection of any piece of human knowledge, and calls for detailed case by case assessment, then adoption, rejection, or acceptance after modification. The Islamic approach also insists on severability wherever possible, to salvage good parts from a bad whole. One particular argument for total break from conventional economics, is its assumption of selfishness of economic agents. I demonstrate that this is an overreaction by giving specific examples of Muslim jurist’s nuanced view of selfishness (or self-interest): when acceptable, when discouraged, and when completely prohibited. I conclude that from an Islamic point of view, a break with conventional economics is not justified. Continued engagement with conventional economics is necessary and mutually beneficial, provided due attention is given to: (a) the non-selfish sectors, and (b) to behavioral and institutional reforms. Finally, the paper comments on ethics in conventional economics and Islamic economics.
{"title":"Islamic and Conventional Economics – Dialogue and Ethics","authors":"M. Zarqa","doi":"10.4197/islec.32-2.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4197/islec.32-2.10","url":null,"abstract":"Dialogue and intellectual trade between Islamic economics and\u0000conventional economics has been active and mutually beneficial for more than 40\u0000years. I present some concrete examples of this in the current paper. I then assess recent\u0000calls for a complete break of Islamic economics with conventional economics, and find\u0000them clearly inconsistent with Islam’s actual approach to culture and institutions in preIslamic Arabia. The Islamic approach shuns blanket acceptance or rejection of any\u0000piece of human knowledge, and calls for detailed case by case assessment, then\u0000adoption, rejection, or acceptance after modification. The Islamic approach also insists\u0000on severability wherever possible, to salvage good parts from a bad whole. One\u0000particular argument for total break from conventional economics, is its assumption of\u0000selfishness of economic agents. I demonstrate that this is an overreaction by giving\u0000specific examples of Muslim jurist’s nuanced view of selfishness (or self-interest):\u0000when acceptable, when discouraged, and when completely prohibited. I conclude that\u0000from an Islamic point of view, a break with conventional economics is not justified.\u0000Continued engagement with conventional economics is necessary and mutually\u0000beneficial, provided due attention is given to: (a) the non-selfish sectors, and (b) to\u0000behavioral and institutional reforms. Finally, the paper comments on ethics in\u0000conventional economics and Islamic economics.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126096530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The book The Unincorporated Man envisions a future in which every individual is incorporated at birth, and their worth and value are determined on a market exchange. The book uncovers profound questions about personal autonomy and fiduciary responsibility in a world where personhood is commodified, and offers a unique lens into contemporary questions about work/life balance, the degrees of freedom each of us have, and the nature of competing obligations. It provides an interesting perspective into issues we wrestle with today. This paper considers the use of Personal Service Corporations and other contemporary legal vehicles from that perspective.
{"title":"Novel Personal Corporate Structures, Fiduciary Responsibility, and the Ethics of Personhood","authors":"J. McArdle","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3403878","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3403878","url":null,"abstract":"The book The Unincorporated Man envisions a future in which every individual is incorporated at birth, and their worth and value are determined on a market exchange. The book uncovers profound questions about personal autonomy and fiduciary responsibility in a world where personhood is commodified, and offers a unique lens into contemporary questions about work/life balance, the degrees of freedom each of us have, and the nature of competing obligations. It provides an interesting perspective into issues we wrestle with today. This paper considers the use of Personal Service Corporations and other contemporary legal vehicles from that perspective.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132392807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The consequences of multinational corporations (MNCs) for human rights protection are poorly understood. We propose that the motives and behaviour of MNCs vary across industries. Extractive firms go where the resources are, which creates a status quo bias among them when it comes to supporting repressive rulers. Moreover, low skills levels, environmental pollution and exploitative motives can fuel tensions which are subsequently suppressed by governments. The same is not true for non-extractive MNCs, which are less controversial and can exit more easily. Using US foreign direct investment (FDI) broken up into extractive and non-extractive in 114 host countries (1999–2009), we find support for these propositions. Extractive FDI is associated with negative effects on rights, but non-extractive FDI is positive after controlling for a host of relevant factors, including endogeneity. Our results are robust to the use of Extreme Bounds Analysis (EBA) and alternative sample sizes.
{"title":"US Multinationals and Human Rights: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Extractive vs. Non-Extractive Sectors","authors":"K. Vadlamannati, N. Janz, Indra de Soysa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3344832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3344832","url":null,"abstract":"The consequences of multinational corporations (MNCs) for human rights protection are poorly understood. We propose that the motives and behaviour of MNCs vary across industries. Extractive firms go where the resources are, which creates a status quo bias among them when it comes to supporting repressive rulers. Moreover, low skills levels, environmental pollution and exploitative motives can fuel tensions which are subsequently suppressed by governments. The same is not true for non-extractive MNCs, which are less controversial and can exit more easily. Using US foreign direct investment (FDI) broken up into extractive and non-extractive in 114 host countries (1999–2009), we find support for these propositions. Extractive FDI is associated with negative effects on rights, but non-extractive FDI is positive after controlling for a host of relevant factors, including endogeneity. Our results are robust to the use of Extreme Bounds Analysis (EBA) and alternative sample sizes.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128332311","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We propose a novel approach to comparing publications across business disciplines. Specifically, we aim to provide an objective method for evaluating the interdisciplinary value of publications based on intradisciplinary author rankings. Using publication data from the leading journals in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing, we first construct intradisciplinary author rankings and then utilize these rankings to estimate the marginal effect of an additional publication on the individual's ranking within her own discipline. Based on the implied effort required to improve an individual's intradisciplinary ranking, we infer interdisciplinary “exchange rates” to evaluate the value of top-tier publications across disciplines. Our estimates indicate that the value of a single single-authored publication in a top-ranked journal is highest in accounting and lowest in marketing. We confirm the validity of our “exchange rate” approach by constructing an interdisciplinary author ranking in which authors from different disciplines are uniformly distributed across the ranking list.
{"title":"Evaluating Publications Across Business Disciplines: Inferring Interdisciplinary 'Exchange Rates' from Intradisciplinary Author Rankings","authors":"Timo P. Korkeamaki, Jukka Sihvonen, Sami Vähämaa","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2793483","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2793483","url":null,"abstract":"We propose a novel approach to comparing publications across business disciplines. Specifically, we aim to provide an objective method for evaluating the interdisciplinary value of publications based on intradisciplinary author rankings. Using publication data from the leading journals in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing, we first construct intradisciplinary author rankings and then utilize these rankings to estimate the marginal effect of an additional publication on the individual's ranking within her own discipline. Based on the implied effort required to improve an individual's intradisciplinary ranking, we infer interdisciplinary “exchange rates” to evaluate the value of top-tier publications across disciplines. Our estimates indicate that the value of a single single-authored publication in a top-ranked journal is highest in accounting and lowest in marketing. We confirm the validity of our “exchange rate” approach by constructing an interdisciplinary author ranking in which authors from different disciplines are uniformly distributed across the ranking list.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132131208","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper I explore what "working alternatives" to shareholder capitalism could look like. I explore the various understandings and definitions of capitalism and suggest that capitalism may be best understood as rhetorical device. I then explore the current ontological assumptions of shareholder capitalism and agency theory, and juxtapose alternatives. Based on a humanistic perspective, I then suggest several archetypes of management that can showcase "working alternatives," or case studies that adhere to different managerial precepts.
{"title":"Working Alternatives - From Capitalism to Humanistic Management?","authors":"M. Pirson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2961559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2961559","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I explore what \"working alternatives\" to shareholder capitalism could look like. I explore the various understandings and definitions of capitalism and suggest that capitalism may be best understood as rhetorical device. I then explore the current ontological assumptions of shareholder capitalism and agency theory, and juxtapose alternatives. Based on a humanistic perspective, I then suggest several archetypes of management that can showcase \"working alternatives,\" or case studies that adhere to different managerial precepts.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129838806","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Chris Brooks, E. Fenton, Lisa Schopohl, James T. Walker
The quantity of finance research has grown enormously over the past two decades, yet questions remain over its breadth and ability to benefit the economy and society beyond academia. Using multisource data, we argue that individual and institutional incentives have fostered insularity and a consequent homogeneity in the discipline. We examine the characteristics of research that is published and cited in the leading field journals in finance, arguing that the work has become abstract and unrelated to real world issues. The work published in the ‘top’ journals makes increasing use of US data, even where the researchers are drawn from different countries. Using information from impact assessment, publication patterns, and grant capture, we illustrate that this narrow agenda lacks relevance to the financial services sector, the economy or wider society compared to other areas of business and management research. In particular, we highlight the relative absence of research on ethics in academic finance and discuss the likely consequences for the discipline including its relevance to society.
{"title":"Why Does Research in Finance Have So Little Impact?","authors":"Chris Brooks, E. Fenton, Lisa Schopohl, James T. Walker","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2936544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2936544","url":null,"abstract":"The quantity of finance research has grown enormously over the past two decades, yet questions remain over its breadth and ability to benefit the economy and society beyond academia. Using multisource data, we argue that individual and institutional incentives have fostered insularity and a consequent homogeneity in the discipline. We examine the characteristics of research that is published and cited in the leading field journals in finance, arguing that the work has become abstract and unrelated to real world issues. The work published in the ‘top’ journals makes increasing use of US data, even where the researchers are drawn from different countries. Using information from impact assessment, publication patterns, and grant capture, we illustrate that this narrow agenda lacks relevance to the financial services sector, the economy or wider society compared to other areas of business and management research. In particular, we highlight the relative absence of research on ethics in academic finance and discuss the likely consequences for the discipline including its relevance to society.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128436017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Financial institutions and markets occupy a key place in the economic and social well-being of individuals, companies and societies but, if they are not managed adequately, this can have important consequences, also in ethical terms. This work is a simple and brief explanation of the ethical problems posed by institutions, markets and financial products.
{"title":"Money and Finance: Ethical Considerations","authors":"Antonio Argandoña","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2900938","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2900938","url":null,"abstract":"Financial institutions and markets occupy a key place in the economic and social well-being of individuals, companies and societies but, if they are not managed adequately, this can have important consequences, also in ethical terms. This work is a simple and brief explanation of the ethical problems posed by institutions, markets and financial products.","PeriodicalId":289083,"journal":{"name":"PRN: Business & Professional Ethics (Sub-Topic)","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123739191","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：