Schlagwort-Archiv: Alternativen

CfP „The Ethics of the Commons“ – Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics

Call for Papers

Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics

The Ethics of the Commons

Submission Deadline: 15 December 2018

Guest editors Helen Haugh, University of Cambridge, UK,<>

Marek Hudon, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium,<>

Camille Meyer, University of Victoria, Canada,<>

Ana Maria Peredo, University of Victoria, Canada,   <>

Introduction to the Special Issue

The concept of ‘the commons’ has a long history (Sison & Fontrodona, 2012) and during the last three decades has generated increasing excitement in the scholarly literature. A major factor in the surge of interest has been the work inspired by Elinor Ostrom, Nobel memorial prize in economics sciences laureate for 2009, especially when linked to the economic and social crises that have fostered interest in different ways of organizing economic life. Recovering and implementing the concept of the commons has been hailed by scholars and practitioners as a way of creating new collective wealth (Akrivou & Sison, 2016; Bollier & Helfrich, 2014; Tedmanson et al., 2015), and for addressing what are seen as the societal ills created by neoliberalism (Caffentzis, 2010). This is a call for submissions to a special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics aimed at providing an overarching perspective on the ethical dimensions and drivers of the phenomenon labelled ‘the commons’. In its broadest sense, ‘the commons’ is understood to refer simply to resources of many kinds, e.g., open access and public goods, where no individual person has the right to exclude others from enjoying their benefits. Ostrom focuses on the common property regime – a tighter concept of the commons wherein some group succeeds in making a ‘common pool resource’ a shared benefit by establishing the right of exclusion from it and managing it in a way that avoids the infamous ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Ostrom, 1990, 1999; Ostrom & Hess, 2008). This special issue particularly welcomes more bounded conceptualization of the commons. The (re)emergence of a “commons paradigm” (Bollier, 2011) refers explicitly to how civil society organizations enable people to collaborate and share. This paradigm presents a way that is simultaneously novel yet draws also on the deep history of analyzing social practices implemented through cooperation, collective action and solidarity. Collective forms of resource ownership and management are often directed toward the common good in keeping with the ethics of living in a community whose purpose is both individual and collective flourishing (Argandoña, 1998; Haugh, 2007; Melé, 2009, 2012; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Sison et al., 2012). In this regard, commons organizations create, transform and legitimize nonprofit and community norms and rules (Bushouse et al., 2016; Marquis & Battilana, 2009; Périlleux & Nyssens, 2017). Some forms of commons require multiple forms of collective action for their management (Ostrom, 1990). These participatory methods generate ethical challenges due to the complexity of their management and collective governance. Others have drawn attention to the way that new commons are being created in many resources and environments (Fournier, 2013; Meyer & Hudon, 2017, and how commons are being ‘enclosed’ and removed from wider access (Bollier, 2003). The idea of ‘commoning’ has become a central concept in determining how commons are created and recognized as a social phenomenon (Euler, 2015; Fournier, 2013; Linebaugh, 2008).

This call seeks papers that examine the ethical landscape of the commons in any and all of these dimensions. Possible Themes and Topics We seek papers that shed light on the ethical foundations and implications of the commons. We welcome original papers from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives and invite papers that provide insights into, but not limited to, the following topics:

Topic 1: Conceptualization, Ethics and Rights related to the commons – How does ethics shape the definition and conceptualization of commons? – How do different ethical theories provide descriptive and normative insights into commons? – Property rights, including common property rights, are after all rights. How do the ethical implications of different property regimes compare and influence entrepreneurship and organizing? – For organizations and communities, how do ethical drivers enable collective action in social, environmental and other commons?

Topic 2: Governance of Commons – What are the motivations and mechanisms for cooperation and participation in commons governance and management? – What are the ethical challenges to and limits of collective action and decision-making in commons organizations? – How has the conception, practice and institutionalization of commons evolved over time, and what are the ethical factors that contribute to its evolution and persistence? – How do values and culture regenerate collective practices?

Topic 3: Social and Community Entrepreneurship and Impacts – What insights can a study of the commons offer to social and community entrepreneurship research? – How is social value created through commons organizations? – What are the ethical implications of new commons and new ways of commoning for entrepreneurship? – What are the ethical impacts of commons in housing? Food? Environmental activism? Other commons?

Topic 4: The Commons in a Market Society – Are there differences in the way that private property and common property regimes influence markets? If so, what are the ethical implications? – Do prevailing conceptions of entrepreneurship impinge on the role of the commons as a means of producing and distributing goods, e.g., by new forms of enclosure in items such as traditional knowledge, patents, and the human genome? – Do commons represent an ethical challenge to capitalist-market/neoliberal political systems? Submission Process and Deadlines Authors are encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website for instructions on submitting a paper.


The CfP for download as a PDF file: CfP_JBE_The Ethics of the Commons

Neue Veröffentlichung in Managementforschung 27(1): „Von anderen Organisationen – Ein Essay über Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung“

Eine kleine Eigenwerbung: Mein Artikel „Von anderen Organisationen – Ein Essay über Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung“ ist nun in der Managementforschung 27(1) erschienen.

Link zum Beitrag:

Eine Vorabversion findet sich auf Academia und Researchgate:


Der Essay geht von der Beobachtung aus, dass trotz der Allgegenwart von Kritik die kritische
Praxis sich auf einem notorisch schwankenden Grund befindet sowie angesichts propagierter
gesellschaftlicher  Alternativlosigkeiten  und  eines  herrschenden  zynischen  Bewusstseins  als
ein eher naives und trübsinniges Geschäft erscheint. Mit Blick auf die Organisationsforschung
werden deshalb mit der immanenten Kritik, der an Foucault anschließenden Genealogie sowie
der welterschließenden Kritik drei Perspektiven kritischer Organisationsforschung diskutiert,
welche der kritischen Praxis schärfere Konturen verleihen. Mit der welterschließenden Kritik,
welche sich der Sichtbarmachung von Heterotopien, von anderen und alternativen Formen des
Organisierens widmet, wird eine kritische Praxis vorgeschlagen, welche den Gegensatz von
Affirmation  und  permanenter  Kritik  unterläuft  und  so  zu  einer  Revitalisierung  von  Kritik
beitragen kann.

Critical  Management  Studies  ·  Foucault  ·  Genealogie  ·  Heterotopie  ·  Immanente  Kritik  ·
Kritische Organisationsforschung · Welterschließung


The  essay  starts  with  the  observation  that,  despite  the  omnipresence  of  criticism,  critical
practice  is  on  a  notoriously  fluctuating  ground.  Even  more  the  propagated  lack  of  social
alternatives  and  a  dominant  cynical  consciousness  turns  critique  to  a  rather  naive  and  dull business.  Regarding  organizational  research,  the  perspectives  of  immanent  criticism,
Foucault’s  genealogy,  and  critique  as  world-disclosure  are  discussed  to  give  the  critical
practice sharper outlines. With world-disclosure devoted to the visualization of heterotopies,
that is of alternative forms of organization, a critical practice is suggested which undermines
the  opposition  between  affirmation  and  permanent  criticism,  and  thus  contributes  to  a
revitalization of critique.

Critical  Management  Studies  ·  Critical  organization  studies  ·  Foucault  ·  Genealogy  ·
Heterotopia · Immanent critique · World-disclosure

Call for papers Sub-Theme 05: Organizing Resilience: In, Against, Despite and Beyond Capital, LAEMOS 2018, Buenos Aires, March 22-24

Call for papers Sub-Theme 05: Organizing Resilience: In, Against, Despite and Beyond Capital, LAEMOS 2018, Buenos Aires, March 22-24


Ana C. Dinerstein

Luciana Ghiotto

F. Harry Pitts

Patrizia Zanoni

*Deadline abstract submission (up to 1000 words): September 30, 2017.*

Extract from the CfP:

„This stream welcomes submissions that recode the concept of resilience away from survival within the present organisation of work and economic life, towards the development of alternatives ‘in, against and beyond’ capitalism. In critical management studies, resilience is associated with resistance within organizations and how working place resistance relates to other spheres in civil society (Spicer and Böhm 2007). Social movement organizations’ role is regarded as the ‘sites’ for the creation of novel organizational subjectivities and ethical practices’ (Munro, 2014: 1127). This approach demands to ‘reposition organization theory’ towards an anti-hegemonic approach (Böhm 2006: 104) that links critical organization studies with developments in anti-capitalist movements towards the renewal of organization studies (Reedy, 2014: 652) in the direction of utopia (on this see Parker –ed. 2002).“

You can find the full CfP as well as the other streams of the conference at the conference website:

Post-Capitalistic Politics in the Making: Practices of Alternative Economics – Special Issue, Organization 24(5)

Special Issue: Post-Capitalistic Politics in the Making: Practices of
Alternative Economics, Organization 24(5)

Post-capitalistic politics in the making: The imaginary and praxis of
alternative economies
Patrizia Zanoni, Alessia Contu, Stephen Healy, Raza Mir

Entrepreneurial reproductive labor as alternative economic practice: The
ambivalent discourse of seasonal consignment sales
Alexis Bryson, Sarah E. Dempsey

The illusion of the digital commons: ‘False consciousness’ in online
alternative economies
Marinus Ossewaarde, Wessel Reijers

Alternative organizations in finance: Commoning in complementary
Camille Meyer, Marek Hudon

Spaces of open-source politics: Physical and digital conditions for
political organization
Emil Husted, Ursula Plesner

Supporting alternative organizations? Exploring scholars’ involvement
in the performativity of worker-recuperated enterprises
Susana C Esper, Laure Cabantous, Luciano Barin-Cruz, Jean-Pascal Gond

Gemeinnützige Genossenschaft als Rechtsform für Alternativbetriebe

Die Frage möglicher Rechtsformen und den damit verknüpften partizipativen und basisdemokratischen Elementen ist bedeutsam für alternative Organisationsformen. Die gemeinnützige Genossenschaft stellt eine Möglichkeit dar – hierzu ein knapper Bericht über den zu den Höfen der solidarischen Landwirtschaft (SoLAWi) zählenden Vauß-Hof in der Zeitschrift contraste:

Gesellschaft für sozioökonomische Bildung und Wissenschaft (GSÖBW)

Im Oktober 2016 wurde die Gesellschaft für sozioökonomische Bildung und Wissenschaft (GSÖBW) (Association for SocioEconomic Education and Research) gegründet. Ziel ist die Förderung einer pluralistischen und interdisziplinären Ausrichtung der Lehre und Forschung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften. Aus der Gründungserklärung des Vereins:

„Der Ruf nach interdisziplinärem Denken und Forschen steht auf der öffentlichen Agenda seit einigen Jahren weit oben. Die Gesellschaft für sozioökonomische Bildung und Wissenschaft (GSÖBW) trägt den Forderungen nach einer Erneuerung der wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Forschung und Lehre Rechnung. Ihrem Selbstverständnis nach stellt sich sozioökonomische Bildung und Wissenschaft weniger als eine Natur-, son­dern vielmehr als eine multiparadigmatische Sozialwissenschaft dar. Sie verpflichtet sich den Prinzipien der Interdisziplinarität, Pluralität und Kontroversität ebenso wie der permanenten ethischen Reflexion. Dies betrifft die Lehre an den Hochschulen ebenso wie den Unterricht an Schulen, verbreitet sich die Forderung nach (mehr) Pluralismus doch vielmehr institutionenübergreifend.“

Zur Tätigkeit des Vereins zählen auch jährliche Fachtagungen. Die 2. Jahrestagung der GSÖBW zum Thema „Historizität und Sozialität in der sozioökonomischen Bildung“ findet vom 27.2-1.3.2018 in Tutzing statt.

Zur Homepage:

Als Einstieg in das Feld der Sozioökonomie empfiehlt sich zudem:

Hedtke, Reinhold (Hrsg.) (2015): Was ist und wozu Sozioökonomie? Wiesbaden: Springer VS.


Symposium „Partizipationspraktiken in Genossenschaften“ – Manuskripte und Folien

Zu unserem Symposium „Partizipationspraktiken in Genossenschaften“ im April in Chemnitz stehen nun die Manuskripte und Foliensätze als Download zur Verfügung. Herzlichen Dank an alle Beitragenden für das zur Verfügung stellen der Manuskripte! Hier die einzelnen Beiträge:

Jürgen Keßler, HTW Berlin: Genossenschaften zwischen unternehmerischer
Effizienz und Teilhabe – eine ökonomische und rechtliche Analyse

Herbert Klemisch, Wissenschaftsladen Bonn: (Post)Demokratie und Unternehmensmitbestimmung in Genossenschaften

Walter Vogt, IG Metall: ‚Mehr Teilhabe wagen‘: Belegschaftsgenossenschaften
als Möglichkeit für die Förderung betrieblicher Partizipation im Kontext von Standort- und

Ronald Hartz, Melanie Hühn, Irma Rybnikova, Markus Tümpel: Partizipationspraktiken in Genossenschaften – Ergebnisse und Diskussion der Fallstudien
Hier der Link zu den Materialien:





CfP – DISSENSUS! RADICAL DEMOCRACY AND BUSINESS ETHICS. Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics

Call for Papers

Special Issue of the Journal of Business Ethics


Submission Deadline: 4 June 2018


Carl Rhodes, University of Technology Sydney, Australia.

Iain Munro, Newcastle University, UK.

Torkild Thanem, Stockholm University, Sweden.

Alison Pullen, Macquarie University, Australia.


In an era of prolonged financial crisis, political instability and worldwide injustice, the economic and ethical legitimacy of corporate power requires continued challenge. Scandal after scandal has revealed corporations showing little regard for the institutions of liberal democracy. Whether it be tax evasion, law breaking, political lobbying or outright corruption, corporations are content to flout notions of justice, equality and freedom in an escalating pursuit of profit (see Barkan 2013; Brown 2015). Liberal democracy promises opportunity and inclusion, yet democratic states are complicit in strengthening the power of the corporations they glorify as wealth creators and job securers. In ‘post-democracy’ (Crouch, 2004) politics revolves around the conflated interests of corporations and politicians, reinforcing injustice and inequality on a global scale and resulting in poverty, torture, trafficking, imprisonment, and death. This special issue will investigate and challenge this state of affairs by exploring business ethics as it relates to ‘radical democracy’ (Mouffe, 1996; Robbins, 2011). This is democracy conceived as an ethical alternative to the potent marriage of the liberal democratic state and corporate power. As Rancière (2015) explains, the political dissensus required for democracy bears witness to marginalized voices excluded from the prevailing status quo. Such dissensus also enacts a particular ethics rested in the radical questioning and subversion of the totalizing tendencies of power. In response to what Ziarek (2001) has called ‘the ethics of dissensus’, the political task is to fight against the powers, injustices and inequalities that affect people not just politically, but also materially. This ethics goes beyond the questioning of corporate power, and projects us towards trajectories where people already live and work independently of the corporate-government complex. The ethics and politics of dissensus becomes the radically democratic alternative, directed towards sustainable futures at the level of life itself.


Papers are called for which explore the ethics and politics of radical democracy as it manifests in dissensus and the subversion of corporate power by alternative democratic practices and realities. This is no fantasy, it is witnessed by struggles in domains as diverse as environmentalism, agriculture, affective labour, domestic work, craftwork, art, and the hacker ethic of the open source community. Acknowledging that contemporary politics have created an inverse relationship between corporate power and democracy, we seek to consider the character of this inversion, how it has been resisted, and the alternatives to it. We do not just ask whether democratic alternatives to the liberalistic reign of corporations, markets and corporate governments are possible, but how they are and can be realized. Required is a profound ethico-political engagement; a struggle that moves from critique, to resistance, to alternative realities. This evokes, in Spivak’s (1993) words, an ‘impossible intimacy of the ethical’ that strives for a genuine respect of the value of difference. Such intimacy can also invoke a politically aware and democratic business ethics built on the potential of dissent, alterity and critique as a means of refusing hegemony of all types. Papers might consider, but are by no means limited to, the following topics:

• The effects of Free Trade Agreements and trade wars on democracy.

• Spaces, places and strategies for ethicso-political democratic dissent.

• The politics, ethics and aesthetics of dissensus, through feminism and critical race theory.

• The ethico-political struggle for alternative ways of life, work and organization in the context of global and nationalist capitalism.

• Alternative economies and the subversion of free market liberalism.

• The development of a heterodox management studies to better imagine alternatives within the field of management studies.

• The ‘depoliticization’ of theory and academic work more generally

• The praxis, organization and effectiveness of anti-corporate movements.

• Business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility as anti-democratic forms of corporate consensus.

• Inequality, difference and class struggle.

• Critiques of corporate sovereignty, justice and dissent.

• Tensions between the materiality of democracy, neoliberal rationality and neoconservative ideology.


Authors should refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website for instructions on submitting a paper and for more information about the journal: Submission to the special issue by 4 June 2018 is required through Editorial Manager at: Upon submission, please indicate that your sub- mission is to this Special Issue. Questions about potential topics and papers should be directed to the guest editors.


Barkan, J. (2013) Corporate Sovereignty: Law and Government Under Capitalism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Brown, W. (2015) Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution, New York: Zone Books.

Crouch, C. (2004) Post-Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.

Mouffe, C. (1996) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community. London: Verso.

Rancière, J. (2015) Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics, London: Continuum

Robbins, J. W. (2011) Radical Democracy and Political Theology, New York: Columbia.

Spivak , G. (1993) Outside the Teaching Machine, London: Routeldge.

Ziarek, E. P. (2001) Postmodernity, Feminism and the Politics of Radical Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Special Issue on Critical Performativity in M@n@gement

*Special issue – Putting Critical Performativity to work – 20(1)* Available here:


*Introduction To The Special Issue: The evolving debate about critical performativity*

Isabelle Huault, Véronique Perret, André Spicer, Dan Kärreman.


*Conditions for critical performativity in a polycontextural society*

Morten Knudsen (Copenhagen Business School)

*Abstract.* This paper argues that practice, not science, decides the performativity of science. The argument is inspired by Austin’s question of what it is that gives language its performative force. What are the conditions which connect sentences to certain effects? Advancing this question from the level of sentences to a societal level, and taking inspiration from the failure of Marxist notions of the relation between theory and practice, the paper suggests thinking critical performativity under the conditions of differentiation. This idea is qualified by means of Niklas Luhmann and his theory of a functionally differentiated – or polycontextural – society. Functional differentiation and polycontexturality mean that systems cannot communicate with each other; there is no real transfer of scientific knowledge into practice. Unhappy performativity is the rule. Based on this insight the paper discusses elements of a critical research strategy – under polycontextural conditions – and four guidelines for a critical science are suggested.

*How can performativity contribute to management and organization research? Theoretical Perspectives and analytical framework*

Franck Aggeri (MINES ParisTech)

*Abstract.* The issue of performativity reverse the classical perspective in the social sciences, for they revolve less around describing a pre-existing reality than understanding how reality is produced by intentional interventions. Yet the link between intervention and performativity is by no means automatic. On the contrary, this approach encourages us to focus on the pragmatic conditions that allow this performation to be constructed. In this sense, the aim of this article is threefold. First, it expands the field of performativity, which is structured around three dominant approaches (Austinian, Callonian and Butlerian), to encompass lesserknown research on writing and calculation. Second, it proposes a comparison between theoretical perspectives of research on performativity, and two other research trends in social science and in organizations. These, without using the term performativity, present strong similarities to it from a theoretical and methodological point of view: Foucauldian approaches and instrument-based approaches to organizations. Based on the concepts thus introduced, this article then proposes an analysis framework for performation processes in organizations, articulated around three levels of analysis: i) the study, on an elementary level, of speech acts, acts of calculation, and acts of writing organized around instrumented activities; ii) their insertion within the management dispositifs that give them meaning and contribute to defining their boundaries; and iii) the putting into perspective of these dispositifs in historical transformations in forms of governmentality. This analytical framework is applied in the case of the car project referred to as L, an instance of collaborative research in which a crisis situation characterized by the disalignment between the elementary acts studied and the management dispositif implemented by the company was examine. This case illustrates a more general phenomenon in which management dispositifs produce negative effects on the skills dynamics in a company, and on individuals’ involvement in these collective projects. It also explains the infelicity of certain performative acts.

*Art performance as research, friction and deed*

Emilie Reinhold (Stockholm Business School)

*Abstract.* To extend and enrich the debate on critical performativity, this paper proposes that critical management studies should create a strategic link with organisational aesthetics through an alliance with critical artists doing interventions in organisations. These artists produce social change at the margin of organisations and our task as critical researchers is to give a voice to their artistic action in the field of management. Art performance is presented as a research method and a political action able to give critical performativity a new impulse. Two dance performances in a bank are described and analysed: while the first one is a failure the second produces confusion and embodied tension in the bank’s lounges. The aesthetic tactics used in this art performance are counter-performative: dancers introduce slowness and hesitation of bodies in a context of extreme closure and discipline. Art performance is described as a deed: its only value is that it could be done, which calls for more artistic action in corporate everyday life.

*Critical Performativity and Embodied Performing as materio-socio-cultural Practices – Phenomenological Perspectives on performative Bodies at work*

Wendelin Küpers (ICN Business School)

*Abstract.* One of the most elementary way in which members in organisations are involved in their performances are their embodied and expressed relations and interactions. The paper shows how phenomenology can help to render explicit these incorporated experiences and dimensions of performances in organizational life-worlds. Particularly, Merleau-Ponty`s phenomenology allows to understand the interlacing role of body-related, interrelations of performing processes in and through organising. These embodied dimensions of performance will be demonstrated by examples of performative bodies at work. By concluding some perspectives on embodied performing in organisation are offered.