Author Archive

Read the Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies’ May Issue!

May 4, 2016

The May 2016 special issue of Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies is now available 8280699806_d5bdff2252_zto read for free for the next 30 days! The special issue features articles on issues and decisions in international management. From the introduction for the special issue:

This special issue addresses the subject of issues and decisions in international management, primarily in emerging markets and in some cases developed markets. It does so from a number of perspectives, and from three levels of analysis including the individual manager or employee, the firm, and the national economy.

…One particular insight emerges from having multiplearticles, many of which focus on a particular level of analysis. It is that regardless of the level of focus, all levels clearly become involved in the issues and decisions being considered. This is especially evident in the articles involving Russia, but on closer analysis can be seen in all seven of the articles in the special issue. Whatever level is the central focus, all issues and decisions affect firm policies and strategies, individual productivity and satisfaction, and the overall prosperity of the national economies involved.

JLOS_72ppiRGB_powerpoint

Adding to the richness of this special issue, and contributing to the overall topic of issues and decisions in emerging markets, is the range of countries covered. The breadth stems from a single country view of Chinese firms’ market entry strategies to coverage of the broader internationalization strategies of firms from Russia, India, and China.

Articles published in the special issue include “Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations: A Framework for Analyzing Employee Allegiances” by Snejina Michailova, Zaidah Mustaffa, and Wilhelm Barner-Rasmussen, and “Institutional Erosion and Its Effects on Russia’s Corporate Leadership” by  Ruth C. May, Gregory R. Rayter, and Donna E. Ledgerwood.

In the article, “Organizing for Innovation Ambidexterity in Emerging Markets: Taking Advantage of Supplier Involvement and Foreigness,” authors Denise Dunlap, Ronaldo Parente, Jose-Mauricio Geleilate, and Tucker J. Marion examine two types of innovation ambidexterity in the emerging market of Brazil. The abstract for the paper:

Firms struggle to be ambidextrous in the sense of being able to successfully manage both new and incremental innovation activities simultaneously. Applying the knowledge-based view, we examine the important moderating influences of supplier involvement and foreignness on the relationship between innovation ambidexterity and performance. We test our hypotheses at the business-unit level of analysis in the emerging market of Brazil. We examine two types of innovation ambidexterity: the balanced dimension and the combined dimension. We found that firms possessing greater supplier involvement reap higher performance benefits from the combined dimension of innovation ambidexterity. Last, foreign subsidiaries also achieved higher levels of performance than domestic firms from the combined dimension of innovation ambidexterity.

The May 2016 special issue of  Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies will be free to access for the next 30 days–click here to access the table of contentsWant to know all about the latest from Journal of Leadership & Organizational StudiesClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*World map image attributed to Nicolas Raymond (CC)

Do Consumers Avoid Genetically Modified Wines?

May 3, 2016

25725080022_cd89993d82_z[We’re pleased to welcome Christina Chi of Washington State University. Christina recently published an article in Cornell Hospitality Quarterly entitled “Ready to Embrace Genetically Modified Wines? The Role of Knowledge Exposure and Intrinsic Wine Attributes” with co-authors Lu Lu of Washington State University and Imran Rahman of Auburn University.]

  • What inspired you to be interested in this topic?

The consumption of genetically modified (GM) products is one of the most debatable and significant issues that influence consumers’ purchase behaviors and dining trends. As a critical component of hospitality business, alcoholic beverages (e.g., wines) are highly influential on guests’ dining experience and business revenues. However, existing research provides little insight concerning consumers’ experience with GM wines and their purchase decisions. Therefore, we were inspired to open up a research avenue in this area.

  • Were there findings that were surprising to you?

What slightly surprised us was the strength of aroma and taste in wine drinkers’ decision making. Our study reveals that consumers’ decision making is solely driven by wines’ aroma and taste, which override health or environmental concerns. This finding is critical for wine sellers to better understand the importance of different wine attributes in influencing wine appreciation and purchase decision making.

  • How do you see this study influencing future research and/or practice?

CQ CoverIn addition to opening up a significant but underexplored research stream, this study highlights the rigor of using experimental approach and sensory techniques to understand the behavioral dynamics of experiential products, which may not be fully captured using self-report surveys. More importantly, this research delivers timely strategies for the industry against the backdrop of labeling GM products and offers an in-depth analysis of wine drinkers’ behavior involving conflicts of choice.

The abstract for the paper:

This study examines whether knowledge exposure and supreme wine attributes such as appearance, aroma, taste, and hangover avoidance influence consumers’ quality evaluation and purchase intentions of genetically modified (GM) wines. We conducted two experimental studies in two different settings involving a total of 321 subjects. Results indicate that educating consumers with knowledge on GM wines efficiently reduces the fear caused by GM identity. Importantly, the desirable organoleptic and functional performances of GM wines not only reduce consumers’ concerns with GM products but also enable GM wines to surpass conventional options that are less salient in these performances. Specifically, consumers would choose a GM wine over traditional options if the GM wine has a superior appearance and the ability to eliminate a hangover. Furthermore, consumers express equal acceptance of GM wines and traditional counterparts when there are no differences in aroma and taste. This research delivers significant implications for wine marketing through examining a timely and controversial subject matter.

You can read “Ready to Embrace Genetically Modified Wines? The Role of Knowledge Exposure and Intrinsic Wine Attributes” from Cornell Hospitality Quarterly free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Cornell Hospitality QuarterlyClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Wine image attributed to James Petts (CC)

Christina Geng-Qing Chi is an associate professor at the School of Hospitality Business Management in the Carson College of Business, Washington State University. Her area of research includes tourism marketing, hospitality/tourism consumer behavior and sustainability in tourism/ hospitality industry. Her research has been published broadly in top tier tourism/hospitality journals and presented at numerous hospitality/tourism conferences. Dr. Chi serves on the editorial boards for several hospitality/tourism journals and reviews papers for top tier hospitality/tourism journals.

Imran Rahman is an Assistant Professor in the department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Hospitality Management at Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. His current research program focuses on sustainability in the hospitality industry with an emphasis on consumer behavior in green hotels. He is also actively researching in food and beverage emphasizing primarily on wine consumer behavior.

Lu Lu is a Ph.D. candidate and instructor of School of Hospitality Business Management, Carson College of Business at Washington State University. Her research interests encompass consumer behavior in food and beverage consumption, culture and tourists’ destination experience and complaining efforts.

Book Review: The Biological Foundations of Organizational Behavior

May 2, 2016

Stephen Colarelli, Richard Arvey , eds.: The Biological Foundations of Organizational Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 364 pp. $120.00, hardcover.

Will Drover recently reviewed this book in Administrative Science Quarterly. From the review:

This edited volume hits the mark as a timely, thoughtful collection of chapters that lay a conceptual and empirical foundation for applying the biological sciences to organizational behavior. A unique subdiscipline of biology is addressed in each chapter by preeminent organizational scholars, all of whom have expertise in the biological areas they address. The chapters are structured in broad sections that focus on distinct aspects of biology or levels of analysis, addressing how each can be leveraged to advance the field of organizational behavior.

…A theme of cautious optimism is woven through the chapters. The potential impact Current Issue Coverof biology in organizational behavior is made clear, yet contributors also recognize that such cross-disciplinary study is not a silver bullet. In the course of their chapter, Scott Shane and Nicos Nicolaou succinctly capture the essence of this spirit: “Biological factors influence all aspects of human behavior and are solely responsible for none of them” (p. 73). Thus the text elucidates many profitable ways that biology can advance the field of organizational behavior but also recognizes that the biological perspective represents only part of the equation.

You can read the full review from Administrative Science Quarterly by clicking here. Like what you read? Click here to sign up for e-alerts to receive research and reviews like this directly in your inbox!

Psychological Reports: Call for Editor

April 30, 2016

Current Issue CoverSAGE Publishing is accepting applications for the position of Editor-in-Chief of Psychological Reports for a 3-year-term through May 6, 2016. An editorial stipend is provided.

Psychological Reports is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal that publishes original and creative contributions across all subfields of psychology. The 2014 Impact Factor is 0.560 and it is ranked 94/129 in Multidisciplinary Psychology in Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports. The journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Major responsibilities for this role include:

  • Collaborating with the Publisher and current co-editor to make Psychological Reports a highly effective and impactful resource for psychology research through a strategic review and development of the journal’s policies and processes.
  • Seeking and soliciting high-quality manuscripts which represent the scope of the Journal.
  • Using the manuscript-tracking software provided by the Publisher to arrange for and supervise timely peer review and evaluation of submitted manuscripts for content and merit in accordance with editorial policy and standards of the Journal.

Recent articles published in Psychological Reports include “Chinese Employees’ Psychological Responses to Abusive Supervisors: The Role of Gender and Self-Esteem” and “Understanding the Mediating Role of Quality of Work Life on the Relationship between Emotional Intelligence and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.”

Interested in learning more about this position? Find the complete Call for Editor here. The deadline to apply is May 6, 2016.

Introducing the Journal of Workplace Rights!

April 29, 2016

Journal of Workplace Rights[We’re pleased to welcome Joel Rudin. Joel is the Editor for the Journal of Workplace Rights, a SAGE Open journal that is dedicated to the proposition that human rights should not be compromised by employers. Here’s a little more information about the journal from Joel.]

Welcome to the Journal of Workplace Rights. We are dedicated to the enhancement of the rights of workers, and we define both rights and workers as broadly as possible. Our journal is unique in several ways.

One example is that we do not attempt to strike a balance between the interests of workers and employers as we are only interested in the rights of workers. For instance, when we get first drafts of workplace bullying papers there are usually references to the organizational costs of workplace bullying such as reduced productivity. I tell the authors to delete those references because employers shouldn’t be allowed to bully workers even if it costs employers money to eliminate workplace bullying.

We also have our own review process. Your first draft goes to me and I request changes before it goes to the reviewers. One commonly requested change is to conclude with interesting suggestions that could improve the rights of workers. You would be surprised how many first drafts we get that identify a workplace injustice and propose no remedies. The next draft goes to the reviewers, and the manuscript editor has at the final draft. It can be a speedy review process from start to finish but it usually requires at least two revisions.

Perhaps the most special thing about the Journal of Workplace Rights is that the journal is not as new as it may seem. We published about 125 papers before we joined the SAGE family, and those articles are now freely available, along with about twenty recent papers. It’s a great catalog that anybody who is interested in workplace rights should explore. It features authors from every continent except Antarctica and every workplace right you can think of plus some that you have never thought of. Please feel free to use anything from the catalog for your teaching and research purposes, and please consider us as a publication outlet for your papers about workplace rights.

Any questions about anything related to the journal may be directed to me at jwr@rowan.edu

Interested in submitting to the Journal of Workplace RightsLearn about the journal’s submission guidelines and how to submit your work by clicking here.

You can also read past articles published by the Journal of Workplace Rights by clicking here.

Optimizing Performance Management Systems in the Energy Sector

April 28, 2016

2528399141_5c14f81238_z[We’re pleased to welcome Rui Vieira of University of Amsterdam. Rui recently published an article in Organization & Environment, entitled “Aligning Strategy and Performance Management Systems: The Case of the Wind-Farm Industry” with co-authors Brendan O’Dwyer of University of Amsterdam and Roman Schneider of University of Minho.]

This article presents a case study examining the problems and possibilities of performance management in a wind-farm company. Drawing on Ferreira and Otley’s (2009) recently developed performance management systems (PMSs)  framework, the study demonstrates how the framework facilitates in-depth, holistic and critical evaluations of existing PMSs, and, how these evaluations can drive the development of revised PMSs which balance economic, social and environmental goals. This integrated focus on PMS evaluation and design is unique as prior work seeking to develop systems to promote and measure sustainable performance tends to establish them in isolation from informed evaluations of existing systems. Drawing on the case analysis, the article proposes a form of ‘sustainable balanced scorecard’ to enable a company to streamline their management decision-making. It also offers guidance for companies on the development of PMSs which can contribute to their survival and growth in a wind energy sector characterized by increasing competition.

An excerpt from the paper:

O&E_Mar_2012_vol26_no1_Cover_Final.indd

We conduct a case study using the Ferreira and Otley (2009) framework applied to a German windfarm company. The article makes three contributions to the literature. First, our integrated focus on PMS evaluation and design is unique as, quite often, earlier work seeking to develop systems to promote and measure sustainable performance establishes them in isolation, independent of evaluations of existing systems (Hubbard, 2009; Lohman, Fortuin, & Wouters, 2004). To our knowledge, this is the first study that uses the Ferreira and Otley (2009) framework explicitly to evaluate a company’s existing PMSs as part of a project aimed at designing a revised PMS. The study also mobilizes Broadbent and Laughlin’s (2009) extension to the Ferreira and Otley framework (2009) in order to place additional analytical emphasis on the organizational context within which a PMS is evaluated and designed. Particular attention is given to contextual factors that affect the nature of PMSs in an effort to also offer a better understanding of the interaction between the design and use of PMSs (Agostino & Arnaboldi, 2012; Henri, 2006). Second, the article offers lessons for companies operating in the wind-energy sector (and more widely) with respect to how they might develop their PMSs to help ensure their continued growth and survival. This is important given the need for wind-farm companies to avoid complacency, as the poor design of PMSs will have far-reaching implications if and when widely predicted increased competition is introduced into the wind-farm sector. Third, we draw on the results of our analysis of the wind-farm company’s existing PMSs to propose a form of “Sustainable Balanced Scorecard” (SBSC) to enable the company to streamline their management decision-making. This proposal adopts an approach that is similar to Hubbard’s (2009) SBSC, which added nonmarket (social and environmental) elements to the traditional BSC. Unlike Hubbard (2009), however, in our development of an SBSC we do not encourage a narrow focus on a single metric. Its aim is to ensure that the selected performance measures fully reflect the organization’s wider stakeholders and strategic value drivers and are consistent with the vision and goals of the organization, thereby increasing the visibility of its critical functions. Furthermore, we argue that Ferreira and Otley’s (2009) framework can also be used in other situations in which the need to achieve a balance between economic, environmental, and social objectives is required, like the “Responsive Scorecard” (Van der Woerd & Van den Brink, 2004).

You can read “Aligning Strategy and Performance Management Systems: The Case of the Wind-Farm Industry” from Organization & Environment free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Organization & EnvironmentClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

During the month of April, you can access 1.5 million article across SAGE Publishing’s 940+ journals for free–how? Sign up here for free trial access!

*Wind farm image attributed to warrenski (CC)

Rui Vieira is assistant professor of Management Control and Accounting at the University of Amsterdam Business School, The Netherlands and visiting scholar at Instituto de Empresa Business School, Spain and Nordakademie, Germany. He received his PhD in Industrial and Business Studies from the University of Warwick. Rui’s research interests in management accounting are interdisciplinary and qualitative in focus, covering the fields of management control systems, cost accounting, performance measurement, and their organizational and behavioral aspects.

Brendan O’Dwyer is professor of accounting at the University of Amsterdam Business School. He is also the director of the Amsterdam Business School Research Institute. Previously he was head of the Accounting division at the School. Brendan’s research interests are interdisciplinary and qualitative in focus. His academic work has been published in leading international accounting and management journals such as Accounting, Organizations and Society, Contemporary Accounting Research, The European Accounting Review and The Journal of Business Ethics.

Roman Schneider has been Managing Director of many wind companies in German and Poland for many years. He received his diploma in economics from the Hochschule fuer Oekonomie, Berlin, and his MBA from the Nordakademie, Elmshorn. He is currently a PhD student in Entrepreneurial Sciences (Accounting) at the Universidade do Minho, Portugal, and teaches management accounting and financial controlling in the adult education. His research focuses on management control systems and performance measurement in businesses.

How the Myth of Meritocracy has Perpetuated Gender Inequality in Academia

April 27, 2016

16475971566_45a46cd589_zDespite claims to award university appointments based on meritocracy alone, gender inequality continues to impact the number of women in leadership positions at universities. In theory, meritocracy should be a fair policy to follow when considering candidates for a leadership position. However, the recent Journal of Management article, “Meritocracies or Masculinities? The Differential Allocation of Named Professorships by Gender in the Academy” from authors Len J. Treviño, Luis R. Gomez-Mejia, David B. Balkin, and Franklin G. Mixon Jr., suggests that meritocracy is part of the problem that allows the glass ceiling to persist in academia. The abstract for the article:

This study analyzes differential appointments by gender to the rank of named professorship based on a sample of 511 management professors. This sample JOM 41(3)_Covers.inddrepresents approximately 90% of our original survey sample of faculty at Tier 1 American research universities, with 10 or more years of experience since receiving their PhD, and whose contact information we could obtain online. Contrary to the tenets of the meritocratic evaluation model, we find that, after controlling for research performance and other factors, women are less likely to be awarded named professorships, particularly when the endowed chair is awarded to an internal candidate. Furthermore, we find that women derive lower returns from their scholarly achievements when it comes to appointments to endowed chairs. Our study suggests that a masculine-gendered environment dominates management departments, leading to shifting standards when it comes to the highest senior appointments in academe.

An excerpt from the article explains why the authors chose to focus on management professors in particular:

We focus on management professors for several reasons. First, doing so allows us to control for differences across academic fields in citation rates, frequency of publications, labor markets, endowed chair opportunities, and available resources. Second, the Academy of Management, the major academic association in the field, has over 19,000 members, and it represents a key faculty constituency within colleges of business. Third, presumably business students (particularly at the graduate level) are preparing themselves for leadership positions in corporate America and/or the pursuit of an academic career and endowed faculty serve as an exemplar to them. Last, at a more philosophical level, most of the research and teaching dealing with diversity, discrimination, and equal employment opportunity legislation within business schools occurs in management departments, suggesting that faculty therein should be more sensitive and informed about issues concerning gender inequality.

You can read “Meritocracies or Masculinities? The Differential Allocation of Named Professorships by Gender in the Academy” from Journal of Management free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about the latest research from Journal of ManagementClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Event image attributed to Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan (CC)

 

The Impact of Employee Experience on Productivity and Firm Innovation: A Study of Italy’s Slowdown

April 26, 2016

parma emiliaromagna italy europe piazza in the city of parma

[We’re pleased to welcome Francesco Daveri and Maria Laura Parisi. Francesco and Maria recently published an article in ILR Review entitled “Experience, Innovation, and Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Italy’s Slowdown.”]

Italy has been on a declining growth path well before the current crisis. We see this as the unfortunate combination of policy and managerial habits. On the policy side, a string of partial labor market reforms at the end of the 1990s  made inexperienced–hence less productive–workers enter the labor market. On the managerial side, a long-run feature of Italy’s corporate world is its seniority-based system of managerial selection. Evidence shows that senior conservative managers took advantage of cheap unskilled workers as a way to cut costs. This trend, however, also made a dent on the innovation and productivity performance of Italian companies.

The abstract for the paper:

The authors investigate whether the level of employee experience is good or bad for innovation and productivity. Using a sample of Italian manufacturing firms during the early 2000s, the authors find different results for managers’ versus workers’ experience. The ILR_72ppiRGB_powerpointeffect of managerial experience—proxied by age—on firm performance appears to depend on the type of firm; in innovative firms, having older managers and board members has a negative effect on innovation and productivity, while in non-innovative firms, the costs and benefits of having older managers appear to cancel each other out. For workers, the effect of having a high share of inexperienced (temporary) workers is unambiguously associated with low innovation and low productivity. These results also hold when endogenous regime switching is taken into consideration.

You can read “Experience, Innovation, and Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Italy’s Slowdown” from ILR Review free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about the latest research from ILR Review? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Parma image credited to Mark Goebel (CC)

Francesco Daveri is Professor of Economic Policy at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza.

Maria Laura Parisi is Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Brescia.

Social Networking Sites as an Emerging Organizational Form

April 25, 2016

8464661409_32aa7a26a6_zBecause the landscape of the digital industry is always changing, its organizational structures have to be more malleable in form; the development of this industry and its products has caused a departure from more rigid, traditional organizational structures. Among the newer structures, social networking sites (SNSs) have emerged as a significant area of study for researchers. As an extension of the study of SNSs as a distinct organizational structure, researchers are examining SNSs as a unique organizational form. Co-authors Matthew S. Weber, Janet Fulk and Peter Monge explore this subject in detail in their article, entitled, “The Emergence and Evolution of Social Networking Sites as an Organizational Form,” published in Management Communication Quarterly. The abstract for the paper:

A number of new organizational structures have emerged in recent years, including peer production networks, digitally organized social movements, and social networking sites (SNSs). Researchers have devoted considerable attention to these phenomena as groups and communities. This article takes a complementary approach by conceptualizing them as organizational forms, with focus on the emergence of
SNSs as a distinct organizational form. Community ecology theory is implemented to explicate the emergence and subsequent legitimation of organizational forms, Current Issue Coverproviding a foundation for understanding how new forms emerge through interaction with the surrounding environment. Industry data and historical records are utilized to illustrate the development of one specific form: online SNSs. This analysis demonstrates that legitimation is an ongoing process of replication of features, but legitimacy also occurs through recognition from adjacent populations. Findings illustrate the validity of alternative processes of form legitimacy.

You can read “The Emergence and Evolution of Social Networking Sites as an Organizational Form” from Management Communication Quarterly free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know about the latest research from Management Communication Quarterly? Click here to sign up for e-alerts!

*Collage of social network logos credited to Tanja Cappell (CC)

Rethinking How We Measure Corporate Social Responsibility

April 22, 2016

10617765806_b7f4f4ca12_z[We’re pleased to welcome Gunther Capelle-Blancard. Gunther recently published an article in Business & Society with co-author Aurélien Petit entitled “The Weighting of CSR Dimensions: One Size Does Not Fit All.”]

Companies could develop eco-friendly products or support social programs, and meanwhile damage the environment or experiment governance failures. Corporate Social Responsibility is multidimensional. Often, though, responsible investors (and customers) are interested in synthetic rankings that sum up the ESG (Environmental, Social and corporate Governance) scores.  Such composite scores raise fundamental questions which, surprisingly, are widely overlooked by academics and practitioners.

If the question of fungibility (“do good actions compensate bad ones?”) is essential and has been discussed in the literature, this article focuses on commensurability (the “apples and oranges” problem). For instance, Oil & Gas companies are mostly criticized on environmental issues, while corporate governance is the main stake for Banks. Overall ratings that sum equally environmental, social and corporate governance marks would not reflect the sectors’ concerns. One size does not fit all.

We develop a new method of CSR rating, based on news disclosed by the media and nongovernmental organizations. Thanks to the Covalence EthicalQuote database, we BAS Coveranalyze more than 70,000 positive or negative ESG news, regarding the world’s largest companies. Our results suggest that rating agencies and previous academic research underweight the environment and corporate governance. Mostly, our method allows fitting the ratings to the sectors’ specific stakes. It can be used to assess Corporate Social Performance better.

The abstract for the paper:

Although the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) is fundamentally multidimensional, most studies use composite scores to assess corporate social performance (CSP). How relevant are such composite scores? How the CSR dimensions are weighted? Should the weighting scheme be the same across sectors? This article proposes an original weighting scheme of CSR strengths and concerns, at the sector level, which is proportional to media and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) scrutiny. The authors show that previous CSP assessments underweight environmental and corporate governance concerns. Moreover, findings suggest that firms that are exposed to the closest scrutiny are usually criticized on one single dimension: for instance, banks for bad corporate governance, and basic-resource firms for environmental damage. Composite scores based on equal weights hence misrepresent CSP and the difference in CSR between sectors.

You can read “The Weighting of CSR Dimensions: One Size Does Not Fit All” from Business & Society free for the next two weeks by clicking here. Want to know all about the latest research from Business & SocietyClick here to sign up for e-alerts!

During the month of April, you can access 1.5 million article across SAGE Publishing’s 940+ journals for free–how? Sign up here for free trial access!

*Highrise image credited to Sonny Abesamis (CC)

gunther_IMG_20150922_164249_b41bfe265c.jpgGunther Capelle-Blancard (PhD, University of Paris 1) is professor of economics at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and research fellow at the Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne and Labex RéFi (Regulation financière). His research examines socially responsible investment, corporate social performance, and financial market regulation. His articles have appeared in such journals as Business Ethics: A European Review, European Financial Management Journal, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, and Journal of Investing.

Aurélien Petit

Aurélien Petit (PhD, University of Paris 1) is research fellow at the Centre d’Economie de la Sorbonne. His research interests focus on corporate social responsibility and information disclosure strategies.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 841 other followers

%d bloggers like this: