Responsible Research for Better Business: Creating Useful and Credible Knowledge for Business and So

Short synopses of the chapters

 

Part 1 Introduction

 

RRBM: A Vision of Responsible Research in Business and Management: Striving for Useful and Credible Knowledge

 

This position paper presents a vision of a future in which business schools and scholars worldwide have successfully transformed their research toward responsible science, producing useful and credible knowledge that addresses problems important to business and society. This

vision is based on the belief that business can be a means for a better world if it is informed by responsible research. The paper begins with a set of principles to support responsible research and proposes actions by different stakeholders to help realize this vision. It explains the impetus for the proposal by describing the current business research ecosystem, which encourages research oriented toward scholarly impact much more than societal relevance.

 

Changing the incentives and culture around publications are essential to promoting responsible research. Research is the foundation of business education and practice, yet business research has failed to live up to its promise in promoting better policies and best practices. If nothing is done, business research will lose its legitimacy at best; at worst, it will waste money, talent, and opportunity.

 

 

Part 2   Methodologies for Responsible Business Research

 

 

Tilman Bauer (Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland): Standards for Responsible Research - A Literature Review with a Twist

 

What exactly does it mean to conduct "responsible research"? How do the 'principles' of responsible research relate to generally accepted standards for high-quality business and management research? What are the characteristics of such research that make it 'good,' 'rigorous,' 'credible,' and 'responsible?' This paper shall be a literature review with a twist.

 

First, extant research methods and philosophy of science literature is reviewed for the purpose of identifying standards for high-quality business and management research. The emphasis here is to deduce standards that apply to all kinds of research - whether quantitative or qualitative, empirical or theoretical - and to juxtapose those standards with the principles of responsible research. For example, how do scientific due diligence, rigor, coherence, and construct clarity relate to a study's potential to be of 'service to society?' Are there differences in the value of different types of research?

 

Second, on the basis of the literature review, this paper argues that theoretical research should receive a more prominent position within responsible research/scholarship. All forms of research aim at creating new knowledge based on some (empirical or non-empirical/logical/theoretical) evidence as well as on a deep understanding of reality and extant literature (prior theory). Indeed, the quality of all research depends (among other things) on the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence. Yet, empirical research alone seems to be the eminent category of research in academia at business schools, as researchers are encouraged to arrive at novel findings through 'collecting' and 'analyzing' empirical 'data.'

 

However, this way of understanding research is prone to limiting the extent to which a study can be revelatory or groundbreaking in terms of solving the world's wicked problems. While empirical research certainly has its place, this paper argues that theoretical research has greater power to come up with groundbreaking ideas because empirical research, by definition, operates within the bounds of ideas that others have already, consciously or unconsciously, undergone in some form. After all, creating a better world through research requires pioneering approaches that transcend the limits of current practices. The paper concludes with a set of standards for such research in the field of business and management scholarship.

 

Benito L. Teehankee (De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines): Critical Realism and Responsible Business and Management Research

 

While the critical role of business and management in society has been increasingly highlighted by frequent business scandals with widening impacts in the past decades, most business and management scholars and researchers continue to prize detached rigor over engaged relevance.

 

A key motivator for the current detached approach to research in business and management is the prevailing, though often implicit, positivist philosophy of science (Bacharach, 1989; Johnson & Duberley, 2001).  The chapter argues that critical realism (CR) as a philosophy of science provides an alternative ontology, epistemology, and axiology that can better ground responsible research (Tsang, 2016). 

 

Whetten (1989) argued that good management theory must include plausible and convincing explanations for why data should relate to each other in the ways specified and why this should guide practice. To this end, discerning management researchers need to consider issues involving philosophy of science. The kinds of questions researchers ask, the suitability of different methodologies to investigate such questions and the evaluation of resulting research outputs all imply underlying philosophical assumptions (Johnson & Duberley, 2001).  

 

CR (at least the variant discussed here) was founded as a philosophy of science in the 1970s by the British philosopher Roy Bhaskar (Bhaskar, 2008; Bhaskar, 1998).  It has been relatively underrepresented in mainstream management research (Tsoukas, 1989) but has had some traction among British management researchers (Fleetwood & Ackroyd, 2004; Ackroyd & Fleetwood, 2003; Hesketh & Fleetwood, 2006).   Recently, it has been gaining increasing but slow coverage among US scholars through the work of Tsang in philosophy of management research (Tsang, 2016) and entrepreneurship (Ramoglou & Tsang, 2016), Van de Ven (2007) in engaged scholarship and Rousseau (Rousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008) in evidence-based management. 

 

CR differs most noticeably from the mainstream approach to research by moving beyond Humean event conjunctions as captured in statistical regressions, a central tool in positivist causal analysis , in order to focus instead on explanation: How do we deepen our explanations so that we really understand what is happening in management, organizations, and business in terms of underlying causal mechanisms?

 

CR ontologically presupposes, in scientific alignment with positivism, an objective reality that can exist outside of the observer. In terms of epistemology, the ability of man to know about reality is understood to be fallible due to his limitations for apprehending reality as such and the possibility of false beliefs. 

 

CR's axiology supports more socially engaged research (Van de Ven, 2007): How do we look at the role of our values in the research we do? Through the idea of explanatory critique (Bhaskar, 2009), CR favors moving from the status quo towards achieving personal and organizational transformation:  How can we be change agents for social and ecological welfare as we do research? 

 

 

Knut Ims (NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway) and Laszlo Zsolnai (Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary): Holistic Problem Solving in Responsible Business Research

 

It is a serious failure of business researchers when they solve the wrong problem precisely. This means that their problem formulation is inadequate, which may lead to disastrous consequences for the fate and well-being of the stakeholders. To avoid failures in problem formulation business researchers should reconsider the basic assumptions of the system under study and include as many stakeholders' views as possible. Appropriate solutions should address all the important dimensions of the problem in question (the scientific/technical, the interpersonal/social, the systemic/ecological, and the existential/spiritual), and create an optimal balance among them. Business researchers should also investigate their developed solutions from a deontological point of view (i.e. which ethical norms are violated or satisfied by them?) as well as from a consequentialist point of view (i.e. what are the payoffs for different stakeholders?). The job of responsible business research is to contribute to long-term economic and social transformation by producing knowledge that is substantively relevant and ethically acceptable at the same time.

 

The paper uses the example of executive compensation which has long been a prominent topic in the management literature. A main question that is whether increasing levels of executive compensation can be justified. The paper explores the social, ecological and existential costs of economic incentives, by discussing how relying on increasing levels of executive compensation may have an adverse effect on managerial performance in a broad sense. Specifically, we argue that one-dimensional economic incentives may destroy existential, social, and ecological values that influence the manager's commitment to ensure responsible business conduct, and have negative spillover effects that may reduce the manager's performance. There are well-documented findings that demonstrate that reliance on sources of extrinsic motivation (such as economic incentives) may displace intrinsic motivation. The paper discusses the influence of sources of extrinsic motivation on the manager's intrinsic commitment to different type of values. We will in particular investigate how it may influence the manager's ethical reflection and behavior or lack thereof.  

 

 

Karen Golden-Biddle (Boston University, USA), Jean M. Bartunek (Boston College, USA), and Sara L. Rynes (University of Iowa, USA): Objectivity as Responsibility in Management Research

 

The paper builds on the scholarship of Lisa Heldke (e,g, Heldke 1997; Heldke & Kellert, 1995; Boisvert & Heldke, 2016), a contemporary philosopher. Her work offers a novel and important perspective on responsible management research.

 

Based to a considerable extent on Heldke's work, in this chapter we will assert that a transformed understanding of the role of objectivity in inquiry is required for researchers to conduct responsible research in business and management. Social science research has historically emphasized that research should be undertaken by "an 'objective' - detached and indifferent - observer that leads to clear, certain, unambiguous knowledge" (Boisvert & Heldke, 2016: 108). In contrast, building on Heldke's work, the paper develops a relational conception of objectivity grounded in responsibility to all parties involved in research. 

 

Following Heldke & Kellert (1995:362), our emphasis is epistemological; we want this chapter to enrich our field's understanding about "the good production of knowledge rather than the production of good knowledge."  For Heldke and Kellert (1995: 362), inquiry concerns "any and all processes of generating, evaluating and communicating knowledge..." and the inquiry context "includes all participants - those ... inquiring, those inquired into, and those to whom the results of the inquiry are conveyed." More generally, Heldke follows the classical pragmatist tradition that conceives of inquiry as social process (Dewey 1938; Peirce 1931-1958  CP5:394), a full social experience that is "always collective and social" (Lorino 2018: page 109).  Unfolding social relations among all actors, rather than individual actors as pre-formed entities, become the fundamental unit of social analysis (Emirbayer, 1997; Somers, 1994).

 

The paper expands on Heldke's two aspects of objectivity as responsibility by connecting and elaborating them with extant work in organizational studies and some published examples of organizational and management research. People and environment "always already relating" together constitute the inquiry process (Dewey & Bentley, 1949).

 

First the paper addresses responsibility "to the primacy of relationships", or the relational responding to someone or something in the unfolding inquiry processes. When the important issue is the relationship, roles are more fluid.  They are not composed of fixed, 'researcher' and 'subject' entities who interact in research.  For example, people may occupy more than one role, e.g. both researcher and insider.

 

Second, the paper addresses responsibility "for some action or judgment", or the moral "rightness... a value" for how we are to act. The morality of objectivity can include, for example, how scholars engage other inquirers in the unfolding inquiry process (Golden-Biddle et al, 2003). For scholars this can also include (Heldke & Keller, 1995: 364) inquirers' "choices about how and when to communicate their results, and the way their results are used." How we communicate our findings and how the results are used are crucial to the morality of objectivity. Caprar, Do, Rynes and Bartunek (2016) found that how scholarly findings are communicated can sometimes cause receivers to feel a need to protect themselves, can sometimes cause them to feel that they don't belong.  This might be true, but how should findings be communicated?  Scholars' relationships with other inquirers, in other words, are important before, during and beyond the inquiry process; they do not end when data are collected.

 

The paper concludes by discussing some opportunities and challenges that a relational understanding of objectivity as responsibility implies for conducting responsible research.

 

 

José F. Molina-Azorin (University of Alicante, Spain): Responsible Research and Diversity of Methods

 

Responsible science tries to produce useful and credible knowledge that addresses problems important to business and society, and this vision is based on the belief that business can be a means for a better world if it is informed by responsible research. Mixed methods research (the combination of quantitative and qualitative research in the same study or research project) can help to promote responsible research for better business and a better world.

 

As it is emphasized in this chapter, mixed methods can produce rigorous and quality research, and, at the same time, relevant, useful and actionable research. Regarding the themes, topics and key questions included in the call for contributions to this edited book, this chapter  examines the important role that mixed methods research may play as an appropriate methodology to develop responsible business and management research (second question in the call). The chapter also analyzes the main paradigm characteristics of mixed methods regarding ontology, epistemology and axiology of this methodological approach, emphasizing a transformative perspective that highlights the role of mixed methods as a tool for social change. In this regard, examples of works and research projects that use mixed methods and that promote better business and a better world will be described, emphasizing studies that address grand challenges (such as poverty and sustainable issues). Moreover, recommendations for increasing the use of mixed methods (for scholars, journals and academic institutions) and suggestions for a good implementation of this methodological approach is indicated. Mixed methods research is not a panacea, but it is an appropriate methodology that can help to develop responsible research.

 

Miikka J. Lehtonen (Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland): Responsible Methodologies: Informant Reflexivity through Visual Research Methods

 

For us management scholars, gaining access to informants in organizations is crucial in terms of knowledge production and cutting-edge teaching. Moreover, not only does data collection support our career advancement, but it also contributes to our broadened body of expertise. But what about our respondents, what do they get out of the data collection process? Extant research has investigated the connections between industry and academia (Perkmann et al. 2013) as well as how do we as scholars depart from fieldwork (Michailova et al. 2014), but to date informant reflexivity has not received much scholarly attention.

 

Drawing on a longitudinal research project utilizing visual research methods, this paper illustrates how visual research methods can support informant reflexivity. Data for this project was collected in Helsinki, Finland by inviting video game industry professionals to visualize their industry ecosystem: first drawings were made between 2012-2014 and the second drawings during 2018. The purpose here is to generate longitudinal insights on how the video game industry ecosystem develops over time in Helsinki, Finland, and for the respondents the data collection process helps them to analyze changes over time through the drawings they have made.

 

In conclusion, responsibility in this paper builds on the question 'how do management scholars create value for the practitioners before the manuscript is published to alleviate temporal discrepancies?', and here the paper argues that visual research methods are one of the many means we can employ to give back to our informants. Visual methods help the informants to make sense of and articulate their knowledge by breaking away from linguistic jargon, and the process of thinking through drawing already in itself is insightful for the informants. Through a longitudinal research design, the informants are also exposed to analyzing the changes in their sense-making over the years. In addition, reflexivity and being able to see differently (Barry and Meisiek 2010) that are both inherent in visual methods enables management scholars to contribute to their informants' work already before the journal articles are published.

 

 

Part 3  Getting Closer to Real World Business

 

Adel Guitouni (Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada): The Imperative of Sustainable Value Creation

 

The world affairs are changing. As a consequence of these global and local dynamics, the reality of doing business around the world is changing, which impinge upon the operations of Adam Smith's invisible hand to self-regulate economic activities and shared social welfare while protecting humanity endowment: nature. The last two decades have witnessed an unprecedented scholarship and professional development on sustainability, social responsibility and ethics into business education and practice. The application of sustainability concepts to business to create better business continues to be challenging. Corporate social responsibility (CSR), Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the International Integrated Reporting (IIR), Corporate Social Investment (CSI), Corporate Citizenship (CC), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) and Sustainable Growth (SG) are examples of reporting frameworks introduced to integrate non-financial business performance standards into corporate governance (Blackburn, 2012). However, the problem is that these frameworks also introduce confusion when managers and decision-makers try to understand their meaning and implications for organizational decision-making processes at the strategic, tactical and operational levels. The internalization of sustainability concepts and practices in deliberate and thoughtful business decision processes should guide individuals and organizations to consider all relevant factors, stakeholders and consequences in coherent ways with individual and collective's philosophy and values, which lead to 'socially legitimate' decision.

 

This chapter aims to discuss the development and diffusion of quality decision-making frameworks for better business. It takes the view that better decision-making in business should be founded on two critical concepts: inclusivity and reconciliation. The inclusivity is about being considered for all stakeholder's perspectives and other beings, while reconciliation is about managing competing objectives without compromises. We introduce multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for better business decision-making. From a decision-making perspective, better business is not therefore be based solely on the outcomes (reporting), but also on the process. We suggest a characterization framework with application to a business case (e.g., the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline extension). The chapter includes future perspectives on better business.

 

Ernest C. H. NG (The University of Hong Kong, China): Responsible Research for Responsible Investment - JUST Capital Case Study

 

Market economy has been criticized for applying a narrow financial and materialistic focus on profit as the primary measurement, reasoning, and motivation. In-depth studies have analyzed and expounded the implications and offered alternative models to improve decision making. In addition to quantitative economic considerations, these models include qualitative values to address a full spectrum of responsibilities for the decision makers, such as those in relation to the future generation, society, and environment. Both for-profit and non-profit organizations have been increasingly aware of their performance and risk, not only in financial terms, but also in social and environmental terms-double (financial and social impact) or triple (social, environmental and financial) bottom lines-integrating "doing good" for social interests and "doing well" for business interests.

 

Nonetheless, even on intangible qualitative values, identifiable objectives and measurable indicators are essential to communicate progress and prioritize resources. Without a reliable framework to measure achievements in these intangible values, it would be challenging for managers and investors to evaluate options and make decisions. Apart from a few widely-adopted parameters such as the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), and most recently the 17 Global Goals, quality research on non-financial metrics is inadequate for financial decision making. Specifically, it is challenging and problematic to confidently identify the relevant issues or values critical for a "responsible company". And when there are competing values, how could we weight one factor being more responsible over another-e.g. zero poverty versus clean water, gender equality versus environmentally friendliness? How do we quantify intangible improvement-is working less or more hours a better working condition for employees?

While responsible investment in market economy could contribute to a more sustainable society, it must be built on responsible research. This paper analyses the case of JUST Capital, an independent, not-for-profit registered research organization founded to develop research, rankings, and data-driven tools. It believes that by providing research, it empowers people to make more informed decisions about which companies to invest, work, and buy. People could direct capital towards companies advancing a more "just" future.

 

From the perspective of Responsible Research in Business and Management (RRBM) network, JUST Capital has been uniquely designed and driven to serve society. Not only that it was established with a diverse and strong group of board members, advisors, and partners, its polling methodology is also structured to involve different stakeholders and determined to make an impact through their decision making framework. Its success is attributed to sound research methodology and an open mindset which value plurality and multidisciplinary collaboration. Its transparency and proactive communication strategy with stakeholders also ensure broad dissemination which also further strengthens its impact. The papers builds on the experience of JUST Capital to evaluate the technical and value-driven factors behind its success and reflect on how responsible research could be further facilitated in the academic and professional setting.

 

 

Katalin Illes (University of Westminster, London) and Peter L Jennings (University of Bristol): Spirituality and Leadership Research

 

(to be added later)

 

 

Georges Romme (Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands): The Professionalization Quest: Implications for Business Schools

 

Developing the management discipline into a true profession is one of the grand challenges of our time. As in any other grand societal challenge, one-dimensional responses are useless in addressing the need to professionalize management. This is evident from, for example, the various codes for good (corporate) governance which largely focus on professional behavior. In this chapter, I outline a multi-dimensional framework (described in The Quest for Professionalism, Oxford University Press, 2016), involving the dimensions of purpose, cognition, behavior, and expectation. Subsequently, this framework is used to define and explore various paths out of the current intellectual stasis of the field of management and business. A key pathway is to create a shared sense of professional purpose and responsibility, embedded in a culture of dialogical encounter.

 

Another important route is developing a professional body of knowledge informed by both discovery and validation, which also enables the dialogical encounters between management professionals previously mentioned. Management as a nascent profession is apparently in need of more so-called 'trading zones' that offer opportunities for (professionals with) different voices and interests to meet. Effective trading zones provide attractive platforms for participants with highly different backgrounds and interests to meet and collaborate. Fourth, the expectations that societal stakeholders have of professional conduct and performance can and should be raised; this can be done in several ways, for example by creating conditions that enable employees and other internal stakeholders in organizations to freely speak up as well as by motivating journalists, investors and other external stakeholders to raise the bar with regard to the management discipline.

 

Finally, the paper discusses the implications for business schools arising from these four pathways. One major implication is that business schools should initiate a discourse with their students about the purpose of management as early as possible in the curriculum, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. Another implication is the imperative to engage and immerse students in alternative management approaches and systems, especially those that reflect hope and promise regarding management as a true profession. The final implication may be the most challenging one: the strong need to improve the alignment between espoused

and actual behavior, that is, between what management professors (as role models) say they do and what they actually do - as researchers and educators. Several examples serve to illustrate this kind of misalignment and various other examples provide insight in how alignment can be achieved.

 

James Wallis (GoodBrand, London, UK):  The will and the way: a guiding framework for management research and education to help drive sustainable innovation into practice

 

Humanity's present rates of consumption place an unsustainable burden on planetary resources and natural systems (WWF 2012, CISL 2015). As economic development continues, and global population is expected to reach 9.8bn by 2050 (UN, 2017), this challenge will become even more acute. Failure to transform the institutional bases of consumption could have disastrous consequences. The activities of business are fundamental both to this problem (O'Higgins & Zsolnai 2016), and, through their reach and capacity for innovation, the hope for its solution.

 

Many organizations, including the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the B Team, Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership and the United Nations Environment Programme, advocate the importance of sustainability informed innovation. Moreover, there is evidence that a sizeable majority of CEOs recognize the importance of sustainability to the future success of their businesses, and indeed associated opportunities for innovation and growth (UN Global Compact & Accenture 2014).

 

Despite these (and other) encouraging changes, observers see little evidence that adequate progress is being made to avert significant disruption of human and planetary wellbeing (CISL 2015). In this chapter, using an autoethnographic approach rooted in my consulting experience, I will explore the reasons why businesses and practitioners who explicitly aspire and commit to sustainable innovation often find it difficult to drive it into practice, with a focus on the internal environment of the firm.

 

I begin by seeking an apposite definition of 'sustainable innovation' in the literature, drawing on useful concepts such as the principles of Progressive business (O'Higgins & Zsolnai 2016), and definitions furnished by advisory firms such as SustainAbility.

 

Reflecting on my personal experience through the prism of relevant parallel cases and literature, I will trace some common challenges faced by practitioners in the delivery of sustainable innovation, and argue that many of the challenges associated with the practice of such innovation ultimately stem from an implicit paradigmatic theory of the firm, deriving from the shareholder-maximization thesis.  This paradigm determines both the organizational willingness to pursue and practice sustainable innovation, and the admissible qualities of the processes and approaches used to do so. These two dimensions I characterize as 'the will' and 'the way' respectively.

 

Under "the will", I argue that "positive intent" in respect of a particular initiative is an insufficient characterization of the organizational support required to enable the delivery of sustainable innovation. The development and realization process for sustainable innovation is likely to encounter, and be defeated by, countervailing considerations arising from the traditional paradigm of the firm. Thus, to succeed, "positive intent" must be bolstered by a more holistic conceptual re-understanding of the nature of the firm, and its relationship to the world. Such an understanding will entail a revision and reordering of organizational priorities in a way that is more conducive to the delivery of sustainable innovation. I discuss the possible strengths and limitations of relevant models in the literature (Garriga & Melé 2004).   

 

Under "the way", the I argue, (after Ioannu 2014), that many of the traditional formal methods of innovation seen across different aspects of company value chains are poorly adapted to the conception of sustainable innovation, and further, that the practical structures of incentives and performance criteria can be hostile to its delivery. Instead, these methods are generally built to serve a traditional paradigm of the firm. Thus practitioners require new research and design tools, and more appropriate incentive frameworks to consistently deliver high quality sustainable innovation.

 

The paper concludes by highlighting the evidence that firms which successfully practice sustainable innovation outperform their non-practicing peers over the long run (Eccles et al 2013), and recapitulating the planetary and societal stakes. I suggest that to drive sustainable innovation into practice more reliably, practitioners would benefit from further research and stronger education mapped against these two complementary domains. The will: digestible, applicable new models for understanding the nature and role of the firm, which accommodate and encourage sustainable innovation. The way: the practical methods, tools and processes that are required to deliver it, reliably.