RETHINKING CORPORATE POWER TO TACKLE GRAND SOCIETAL CHALLENGES: LESSONS FROM POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
重新思考企业权力以应对重大社会挑战：政治哲学的启示
RUTH V. AGUILERA Northeastern University Universitat Ramon Llull RUTH V. AGUILERA 东北大学 拉蒙·鲁尔大学
J. ALBERTO ARAGÓN-CORREA University of Granada J. ALBERTO ARAGÓN-CORREA 格拉纳达大学
VALENTINA MARANO Northeastern University 瓦伦蒂娜·马拉诺 东北大学
In this essay, we review and discuss potential changes to dominant governance approaches that may help business leaders play a more active role in global sustainability issues. Instead of refining the ideas from traditional management paradigms, we seek to be intentionally provocative by bringing in fresh ideas from new, influential works on political philosophy to unlock businesses’ ability to enhance the long-term sustainability of the communities where they operate. Collectively, the reviewed books point to the importance of moving corporate governance approaches from their current dominance on shareholders’ interests to a greater emphasis on more collaborative arrangements that integrate a broader set of stakeholders’ interests in a manner that accounts for the financial as well as social and environmental implications of corporate action. It is not our intention to engage in a philosophical discussion of these works, but rather to obtain relevant insights from a related discipline that can help us add novel ideas to existing corporate governance debates. 在这篇文章中，我们回顾并讨论了主导性治理方法可能发生的潜在变革，这些变革或许能帮助企业领导者在全球可持续发展问题中发挥更积极的作用。我们并非要对传统管理范式中的理念进行完善，而是有意通过引入政治哲学领域新的、有影响力的著作中的新鲜观点，来激发企业提升其运营所在社区长期可持续性的能力。总体而言，所回顾的书籍都强调了一个重要点：需将公司治理方法从当前对股东利益的主导地位，转向更重视更具协作性的安排，这些安排应整合更广泛利益相关者的利益，同时兼顾企业行动在财务、社会和环境方面的影响。我们的目的并非对这些著作进行哲学层面的讨论，而是从相关学科中获取有价值的见解，以帮助我们为现有的公司治理辩论增添新颖的观点。
Traditionally, wealth creation for corporate shareholders has been seen as an essential aspect of a firm’s mission (Fama & Jensen, 1983; Friedman, 1970; Jensen & Meckling, 1976). This profit-making orientation is a cornerstone of capitalism as a political and economic system, which has undoubtedly played a key role in its ability to foster the economic well-being of the countries that have embraced it over time. However, in spite of its long-run association with strong economic growth, capitalism’s legitimacy as a political and economic system appears to be increasingly in question nowadays, as capitalist societies wrestle with some of the negative externalities of the dominant profit logic associated with this system, such as social inequality, political and economic corruption, job insecurity, and degradation of natural environments (Barney & Rangan, 2019). Such negative externalities are often seen as a reflection of capitalist societies’ key players’ (i.e., corporations’) inability (or unwillingness) to reconcile their profit-generation aspirations with societal wellbeing by privileging the interests of a few powerful actors (such as shareholders and top executives) over those of the majority (Piketty, 2018; Tsui, Enderle, & Jiang, 2018). While management as a field of inquiry has been keenly focused on the identification of practices that can help foster firms’ profit-making potential, concerns about the negative externalities of the predominant profit logic have also received a great deal of attention of late (e.g., Freeman, 2010; Kaplan, 2019). This has gone hand in hand with a rich debate about how capitalist societies could be reimagined (e.g., Alvarez, Zander, Barney, & Afuah, 2020; Lazzarini, 2021; Reinecke & Ansari, 2021). 传统上，企业股东的财富创造被视为公司使命的一个重要方面（Fama & Jensen, 1983；Friedman, 1970；Jensen & Meckling, 1976）。这种以盈利为导向是资本主义作为一种政治和经济体系的基石，它无疑在其促进所接纳国家经济福祉方面发挥了关键作用。然而，尽管资本主义长期以来与强劲的经济增长相伴，但如今其作为政治和经济体系的合法性似乎日益受到质疑，因为资本主义社会正努力应对与该体系相关的主导利润逻辑带来的一些负面外部性，例如社会不平等、政治和经济腐败、工作不稳定以及自然环境退化（Barney & Rangan, 2019）。这些负面外部性常被视为资本主义社会关键参与者（即企业）无法（或不愿）将其盈利目标与社会福祉相协调，而是优先考虑少数有权势参与者（如股东和高管）的利益而非多数人利益的反映（Piketty, 2018；Tsui, Enderle, & Jiang, 2018）。虽然管理学作为一个研究领域一直专注于识别有助于提升企业盈利潜力的实践，但近年来对主导利润逻辑负面外部性的担忧也受到了广泛关注（例如，Freeman, 2010；Kaplan, 2019）。这与关于如何重新构想资本主义社会的激烈辩论并行（例如，Alvarez, Zander, Barney, & Afuah, 2020；Lazzarini, 2021；Reinecke & Ansari, 2021）。
Therefore, in this review essay, we seek to contribute to these ongoing conversations by leveraging insights from three recently published philosophical works that will help us examine the role of corporate actors as key players in capitalist societies that hold the keys to both economic and societal progress. We chose to focus on three books that have drawn on a philosophical perspective because their conceptual underpinnings of notions such as societal progress and justice have been inspired by a moral rather than utilitarian logic. Moreover, though philosophical principles have influenced law and politics, so far, their influence on business theory remains “limited at best” (Rangan, 2018: 8). Hence, our review of these books introduces novel ideas and perspectives to rethink the role of corporations in society vis-à-vis the promotion of sustainable outcomes. In doing so, we hope to provide insights into how corporations can help achieve the goal of a more sustainable society, where the interests of many are not ignored by the few in power. Importantly, at least one of the authors in each book has been an active participant in the Society for Progress, “an academically diverse and independent group of scholars and leaders” whose “work is based on the belief that integrating perspectives from moral and social philosophy will help evolve the decentralized economic system (‘capitalism’) in a manner that better integrates market and society, humans and nature, and the present and the future” (Society for Progress, 2021). The authors’ exposure to the Society for Progress helps explain the examined books’ shared vision regarding how the lack of or weakness of moral values in economic and governance decisions is one of the primary societal challenges of our time. 因此，在这篇评论文章中，我们试图通过借鉴三部近期出版的哲学著作中的见解，为这些持续进行的讨论做出贡献。这些著作将帮助我们审视企业作为资本主义社会中关键参与者的角色，而这些企业掌握着经济和社会进步的关键。我们选择聚焦于三本从哲学视角出发的书籍，因为它们对社会进步和正义等概念的理论基础，是受到道德逻辑而非功利主义逻辑的启发。此外，尽管哲学原理已影响了法律和政治，但迄今为止，它们对商业理论的影响仍“充其量是有限的”（Rangan，2018：8）。因此，我们对这些书籍的评论引入了新颖的理念和视角，以重新思考企业在社会中的角色，特别是在促进可持续成果方面。在这样做的过程中，我们希望能够深入探讨企业如何助力实现更可持续社会的目标——在这个社会中，多数人的利益不会被少数掌权者忽视。值得注意的是，每本书中至少有一位作者是“进步协会”的活跃成员。该协会是一个“学术背景多元且独立的学者和领袖团体”，其“工作基于这样一种信念：整合道德和社会哲学的视角，将有助于使分散的经济体系（‘资本主义’）以更好地整合市场与社会、人类与自然、当下与未来的方式演进”（进步协会，2021）。作者们对进步协会的参与，有助于解释所考察书籍中共同的愿景：即经济和治理决策中道德价值观的缺失或薄弱，是我们这个时代的主要社会挑战之一。
More specifically, each book explores different societal issues connected to the exercise (and abuse) of power in a profit-driven context and their consequences for the three traditional dimensions of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987). In the first book, On Trade Justice: A Philosophical Plea for a New Global Deal, Risse and Wollner (2019) explored global firms’ power over local communities in international trade. In the second, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (And Why We Don’t Talk About It), Anderson (2017) examined firms’ power over workers. In the third, The Seasons Alter: How to Save Our Planet in Six Acts, Kitcher and Keller (2017) considered the power of a few decision makers and investors over future generations with regard to climate change. 更具体地说，每本书都探讨了在以盈利为驱动的背景下，与权力的行使（和滥用）相关的不同社会问题，以及这些问题对可持续性的三个传统维度——社会、经济和环境——的影响（世界环境与发展委员会[WCED]，1987年）。在第一本书《论贸易正义：为新全球协议发出的哲学呼吁》中，里斯和沃尔纳（2019年）探讨了全球企业在国际贸易中对当地社区的权力。在第二本书《私人政府：雇主如何统治我们的生活（以及我们为何不谈论此事）》中，安德森（2017年）研究了企业对工人的权力。在第三本书《四季更迭：六幕拯救地球的行动》中，基切尔和凯勒（2017年）考虑了少数决策者和投资者在气候变化方面对后代的权力。
In order to discuss the contributions of each book and their potential implications, we organize this essay into four complementary sections. First, we identify the authors’ takes on capitalism’s fundamental flaws. Second, we explore the sources of these flaws by discussing each book’s emphasis on some of capitalism’s most powerful actors, their interests, and the resulting negative outcomes for society at large. Third, we review the authors’ key suggestions to ensure societal progress. Fourth, we propose ways in which insights from the examined books could inspire much-needed changes in how the management field approaches conceptualizing the role of corporations in society. 为了探讨每本书的贡献及其潜在影响，我们将本文分为四个互补的部分。首先，我们明确作者对资本主义根本缺陷的看法。其次，我们通过讨论每本书对资本主义最具影响力的参与者、他们的利益以及由此给整个社会带来的负面后果，来探究这些缺陷的根源。第三，我们回顾作者提出的确保社会进步的关键建议。第四，我们提出一些方法，借鉴所考察书籍中的见解，推动管理领域在概念化企业在社会中的角色方面进行急需的变革。
PROBLEMS WITH THE CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE OF CAPITALISM
当代资本主义实践中的问题
Although the selected books differed in their structure and chosen topics, all of them were linked by their focus on the fundamental problem of the abusive use of corporate power and its implications for societal progress through firms’ impacts on local communities’ welfare, the workplace, and climate change, respectively. Risse and Wollner (2019: 88) conceptualized corporations’ abuse of power in terms of “unfairness through power.” Their synthetic conceptualization offered a useful roadmap for understanding the authors’ concerns regarding how multinational corporations often use their power to cut corners on wages and safety conditions at home and overseas, settle abusive agreements with local subcontractors, and impose conditions on weak governments while offering a limited range of reciprocity. Their interest in these issues reminds us that although mutuality (i.e., a balanced exchange of benefits) may be the theoretical foundation on which the capitalist system is based (Smith, 1776), the reality of economic exchanges can yield a highly uneven distribution of benefits that some would describe as amoral (Rangan, 2018). 尽管所选书籍的结构和主题各不相同，但它们都围绕一个核心问题展开：企业权力的滥用及其对社会进步的影响——具体而言，是通过企业对当地社区福利、工作场所和气候变化的影响来体现的。Risse和Wollner（2019：88）从“权力导致的不公平”角度概念化了企业权力滥用问题。他们的综合概念框架为理解作者的关切提供了有用的思路：跨国公司如何利用权力在国内外削减工资和安全条件、与当地分包商达成不当协议，并在对弱势政府施加条件的同时，提供有限的互惠。他们对这些问题的关注提醒我们，尽管互惠性（即利益的平衡交换）可能是资本主义制度的理论基础（Smith，1776），但经济交换的现实可能导致高度不均衡的利益分配，有人将其描述为非道德的（Rangan，2018）。
Similarly, Anderson (2017) challenged the legitimacy of the subordinate condition of workers in the corporate workplace when it leads to limitations of their fundamental civil rights, such as, for example, constraints on workers’ freedom to express their opinions or political views. A central message in her book was that while workers with limited bargaining power may need to accept their work conditions, such limitations reflect an arbitrary, unaccountable use of power. Finally, Kitcher and Keller (2017) saw human-caused climate change as stemming from the myopic short-term financial preferences of some of the most powerful economic and political actors in capitalist societies—mainly shareholders and politicians in developed countries. Consequently, climate change will be particularly harmful for economically disadvantaged individuals and future generations. 同样，安德森（2017）质疑了企业工作场所中工人从属地位的合法性，因为这种地位会限制他们的基本公民权利，例如对工人表达意见或政治观点自由的约束。她书中的核心信息是，尽管议价能力有限的工人可能需要接受其工作条件，但这种限制反映了权力的任意使用和缺乏问责。最后，基切尔和凯勒（2017）认为，人为导致的气候变化源于资本主义社会中一些最有权势的经济和政治行为者（主要是发达国家的股东和政客）的短视短期财务偏好。因此，气候变化将对经济弱势群体和后代造成特别严重的危害。
In fact, all three examined books stressed that powerinduced impositions connected to amoral profit interests result in unsustainable outcomes. 事实上，所有三本被考察的书都强调，与非道德利润利益相关的权力诱导强加行为会导致不可持续的结果。
In the remainder of this article, we follow the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987) and define corporate sustainability as those corporate actions that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Corporate sustainability requires firms to avoid the kinds of abuse of power discussed above by following the principles of “environmental integrity, social equity, and economic prosperity” (Scherer, Palazzo, & Seidl, 2013: 259). Much of the existing management research about the relationship between corporate governance and society has analyzed corporate actors’ discretion and opportunities to deal with sustainability issues (for detailed reviews on these topics, see Aguilera, Aragón-Correa, Marano, & Tashman, 2021; Jain & Jamali, 2016); however, they have often retained the ultimate focus on whether a firm might increase its financial performance. Specifically, the management field has often examined the sustainability challenges of our times (e.g., climate change, inequality, or civil rights) as a potential source of risks that may limit shareholders’ ability to obtain rewards from their investments (e.g., DesJardine, Marti, & Durand, 2021). Furthermore, the traditional business case for corporate sustainability has been that firms may increase their financial performance by doing good (e.g., Henderson, 2020; Porter & Van der Linde, 1995). Instead, the three books we reviewed in this article relied on the notions of morality and fairness to examine the grand sustainability challenges of our time and their consequences for less powerful societal groups. 在本文的其余部分，我们遵循布伦特兰委员会（WCED，1987）的定义，将企业可持续性界定为企业的行动既能满足当代人的需求，又不损害后代人满足其自身需求的能力。企业可持续性要求企业遵循“环境完整性、社会公平和经济繁荣”的原则（Scherer, Palazzo, & Seidl, 2013: 259），避免上述权力滥用行为。现有大量关于公司治理与社会关系的管理研究分析了企业行为体应对可持续性问题的自由裁量权和机会（有关这些主题的详细综述，见Aguilera, Aragón-Correa, Marano, & Tashman, 2021；Jain & Jamali, 2016）；然而，这些研究往往最终仍聚焦于企业是否可能提高其财务业绩。具体而言，管理领域常将我们这个时代的可持续性挑战（例如气候变化、不平等或公民权利问题）视为可能限制股东从投资中获取回报能力的风险来源（例如DesJardine, Marti, & Durand, 2021）。此外，企业可持续性的传统商业案例认为，企业可以通过行善来提高其财务业绩（例如Henderson, 2020；Porter & Van der Linde, 1995）。相反，本文中我们回顾的三本书籍则依靠道德和公平的概念，考察了当今时代重大的可持续性挑战及其对弱势社会群体的影响。
In doing so, the authors challenged neither the basic assumptions of corporate dynamics in capitalist societies nor the necessity of rewarding investors, but rather the dominant amoral logic that underpins much corporate decision-making in capitalist societies. For example, Anderson (2017) accepted the need for enterprises constituted by hierarchies of authority to organize efficiently the contingencies around a worker’s duties. However, she noted that efficiency cannot justify an arbitrary power over workers that it is not subject to notice, process, or appeal. Similarly, Risse and Wollner (2019) recognized the potential of free trade for generating positive changes internationally, but they emphasized that the principle of distributive justice associated with trade is that any “distribution of gains from global trade is just only if these gains have been obtained without exploitation” (p. 187). In fact, the central idea of the three books was that an amoral approach to decisionmaking and the abuse of power are the real problems that our society needs to tackle to address the grand sustainability challenges of our time. 在这样做时，作者既没有质疑资本主义社会中企业运作的基本假设，也没有否定奖励投资者的必要性，而是挑战了支撑资本主义社会中许多企业决策的主导性非道德逻辑。例如，安德森（2017）认可由权威层级构成的企业需要高效组织围绕工人职责的突发事件。然而，她指出，效率不能成为对工人实施任意权力的正当理由，这种权力不受通知、程序或申诉的约束。同样，里斯和沃尔纳（2019）承认自由贸易在国际层面产生积极变革的潜力，但他们强调，与贸易相关的分配正义原则是：“全球贸易收益的任何分配只有在这些收益的获取过程中不存在剥削时才是公正的”（第187页）。事实上，这三本书的核心思想是，非道德的决策方式和权力滥用才是我们社会需要解决的真正问题，以应对我们这个时代的重大可持续发展挑战。
ADDRESSING THE EXERCISE AND ABUSE OF POWER
处理权力的行使与滥用
Socioeconomic outcomes may be analyzed as a product of the involved actors’ power and interests. Rangan (2018) suggested that understanding who the powerful actors and their interests are is essential in order to make sense of their actions and outcomes. The examined books agreed on the primacy of investors in capitalist societies—a relatively small but very powerful group of actors that are intrinsically connected to the profit logic in the modern corporation. Additionally, they all highlighted the occasionally abusive power of executives and managers in firms (over employees, local communities, and the global commons) that often rely on what could be defined as an amoral decision-making model through which the particular benefits of this small group of actors determine the acceptable operations of firms and even the aims of society. Lastly, the reviewed works paid special attention to regulators around the world, and in the United States in particular, by providing a critical view of how policy makers have failed to control potential abuses of power because of either their limited skills and capacity relative to that of powerful lobbies or the recognition that some regulatory actors have favored a coalition with other powerful actors to better serve their own interests. 社会经济成果可被分析为相关行为体的权力与利益的产物。Rangan（2018）认为，理解谁是权力行为体及其利益所在，对于理解他们的行为和成果至关重要。所考察的书籍一致认为，在资本主义社会中，投资者具有首要地位——这是一个相对规模较小但权力极大的行为体群体，他们与现代企业的利润逻辑内在相连。此外，这些书籍都强调了企业高管和经理偶尔会滥用权力（针对员工、当地社区和全球公共资源），这种滥用往往依赖于一种可被定义为非道德的决策模式，在这种模式下，这一小群行为体的特殊利益决定了企业的可接受运营方式，甚至是社会的目标。最后，所回顾的研究特别关注了世界各地的监管机构，尤其是美国的监管机构，通过批判性地审视政策制定者为何未能控制潜在的权力滥用——原因要么是他们相对于强大游说团体的技能和能力有限，要么是因为一些监管行为体认识到，他们与其他强大行为体结成了联盟，以更好地服务于自身利益。
The most conspicuous interests of all these powerful actors are related to obtaining financial rewards, including the maximization of profits for investors and compensation for executives. For example, Kitcher and Keller (2017) explicitly identified the short-term, selfish financial interests of powerful decision makers as the ultimate antecedents of the growing risks of climate change. They also claimed that climate change skepticism is more closely related to concerns about the financial implications of solutions than scientific evidence. At the organizational level, Risse and Wollner (2019) analyzed how abusive pressure from powerful actors to gain additional profits generates abusive discrimination against non-qualified employees, subcontractors, and local communities. It is also worth highlighting that powerful agents’ interests are not always necessarily based on financial conditions but on maintaining or increasing their power status instead. For example, Anderson (2017) insisted that the severe limitations on some fundamental rights that are experienced by many who work for large corporations are not necessarily implemented because of their associated efficiency gains, but rather because they are a by-product of some misguided social design. Meanwhile, Kitcher and Keller (2017) underscored that short-termism (versus a real long-term costbenefit approach) is associated with dominant climate interests. They considered the prioritization of financial and power rewards as intrinsically linked to powerful actors in contemporary society, while the interests of future generations and moral justice aspirations are alarmingly absent. Kitcher and Keller (2017) highlighted that regulation may be useful in triggering certain actions that may benefit disadvantaged collectives; however, they also criticized governments for generally failing to encourage or enforce moral interests on the part of powerful actors and organizations. Drawing on these insights and our own assessment, we recognize that powerful actors’ interests often generate abusive decisions and private government forms that are “dictatorial” because the resulting actions are a product of unbalanced power between participant actors and amoral criteria. 所有这些强大行为体最显著的利益与获取经济回报相关，包括为投资者实现利润最大化以及高管获得薪酬。例如，Kitcher和Keller（2017）明确将强大决策者的短期、自私的经济利益认定为气候变化风险不断增加的根本诱因。他们还声称，对气候变化的怀疑更多与对解决方案的经济影响的担忧相关，而非科学证据。在组织层面，Risse和Wollner（2019）分析了强大行为体为获取额外利润而施加的滥用压力如何导致对不合格员工、分包商和当地社区的滥用歧视。同样值得强调的是，强大行为体的利益并不总是必然基于经济条件，而是在于维持或增强其权力地位。例如，Anderson（2017）坚持认为，许多为大型企业工作的人所经历的某些基本权利的严重限制，未必是由于相关效率提升而实施的，而是某些错误社会设计的副产品。与此同时，Kitcher和Keller（2017）强调，短期主义（而非真正的长期成本效益方法）与主导性气候利益相关。他们认为，对经济和权力回报的优先考虑与当代社会中的强大行为体有着内在联系，而未来世代的利益和道德正义诉求却令人担忧地缺失。Kitcher和Keller（2017）指出，监管可能有助于触发某些可能使弱势群体受益的行动；然而，他们也批评政府普遍未能鼓励或强制强大行为体和组织关注道德利益。借鉴这些见解并结合我们自身的评估，我们认识到，强大行为体的利益往往会产生滥用决策和“独裁式”的私人治理形式，因为由此产生的行动是参与者之间权力失衡和非道德标准的产物。
The authors of the three books agreed that, unfortunately, any kind of action that serves powerful actors’ self-serving interests is usually institutionally accepted in a context in which actions do not follow a moral but rather a utilitarian justification. Collectively, these works suggested that the unsustainable exploitation of forests, the intensive utilization of oil, the reliance on abusively low wages, the imposition of exploitative regimes on subcontractors or agreements, and the limitation of employees’ basic civil rights to receive information or offer their personal views in the workplace are all too common in the corporate world. Even worse, these actions are frequently viewed as acceptable (or unavoidable) by the public at large as they serve the financial interests of the most powerful actors well and are legitimized by offering limited benefits to other collectives. Hence, the amoral antecedents and unfair implications deriving from everyday corporate actions are usually not subject to debate in the public and corporate domains. 这三本书的作者一致认为，不幸的是，任何服务于强势群体自利利益的行为，在那些行为不遵循道德准则、而是以功利主义为正当性依据的语境中，通常会被制度性地接受。总体而言，这些著作表明，对森林的不可持续开发、对石油的密集利用、依赖虐待性的低工资、对分包商强加剥削性制度或协议，以及限制员工在工作场所获取信息或表达个人观点等基本公民权利，在企业界都极为普遍。更糟糕的是，这些行为往往被公众视为可接受（或不可避免）的，因为它们很好地服务于最有权势群体的经济利益，并且通过为其他群体提供有限的利益而获得合法性。因此，日常企业行为中衍生出的非道德前因和不公平影响，通常在公共和企业领域都不被纳入讨论。
Lastly, the socioeconomic externalities emerging from the pursuit of self-serving interests by powerful actors in corporations include some of the most worrying and unsustainable developments in contemporary societies: irreparable damage to the planet (Kitcher & Keller, 2017), fundamental employee abuses (Anderson, 2017), and the suffering of disadvantaged people (Risse & Wollner, 2019). While wealthy, powerful actors will, of course, also be affected by the future negative impacts of unsustainable outcomes, their effects are and will be particularly negative for the less powerful actors within society or those who do not have a voice, such as less economically advantaged individuals (especially in the developing world), the environment, and future generations. It should concern us that such long-term outcomes are not usually associated with short-term negative financial, health, or reputational implications for the powerful actors that contribute to determining them. 最后，企业中有权势的行为体为追求自身利益而产生的社会经济外部性，包括当代社会中一些最令人担忧且不可持续的发展：对地球造成不可挽回的损害（Kitcher & Keller, 2017）、对员工的根本性虐待（Anderson, 2017）以及弱势群体的苦难（Risse & Wollner, 2019）。当然，富裕且有权势的行为体也会受到不可持续结果的未来负面影响，但这些影响对社会中权力较弱的行为体或没有话语权的群体（如经济上较弱势的个人，尤其是在发展中国家）、环境以及后代而言，其影响将尤为负面。值得我们关注的是，这种长期后果通常与那些促成这些结果的有权势行为体的短期负面财务、健康或声誉影响不相关联。
In general, tangible negative outcomes, such as rising temperatures or income deterioration, are for the majority tied to different forms of more intangible consequences, such as abusive exploitation of corporate stakeholders, amoral preferences of corporate decision-makers, or violations of distributive justice within the local communities where corporate actors operate. Moreover, it is often the case that even those actions that lead to the adoption of potential solutions to unsustainable outcomes, such as intergovernmental cooperation or corporations’ investments in environmental and social initiatives, are only likely to take place when some financial rewards are in sight for the powerful actors involved (Kitcher & Keller, 2017). As a rule, negative outcomes are ignored, not because they cannot be identified or even solved but because of their unbalanced distribution among participating actors. 一般来说，诸如气温上升或收入恶化等有形负面结果，对大多数人而言都与不同形式的更无形的后果相关联，例如对企业利益相关者的虐待性剥削、企业决策者的非道德偏好，或是企业行为者运营所在的当地社区内分配正义的违反。此外，通常情况下，即便那些导致采取潜在解决方案以应对不可持续结果的行动（例如政府间合作或企业对环境和社会举措的投资），也只有在相关强势行为者有望获得某种经济回报时才可能发生（Kitcher & Keller, 2017）。通常，负面结果会被忽视，并非因为它们无法被识别甚至解决，而是因为它们在参与行动者之间的分配不均衡。
TOWARD A MORAL INTEGRATION OF PERFORMANCE AND PROGRESS
走向绩效与进步的道德整合
Philosophy’s mission is not to offer policy prescriptions that can be readily implemented, but rather to guide a person’s reasoning, especially in the face of moral dilemmas. Moral dilemmas are challenging because there tend to exist good reasons for and against the available choices. While modern decision theory seeks to solve trade-offs by comparing “how much of one consequence (or good) one would exchange for one unit of another consequence (or good),” only a value system embedded in social norms may be useful for decisions that compare highly heterogenous implications and break down the walls between philosophy and economics (March, 2018: 85). For instance, one could argue that the Amazonian deforestation may provide some relevant financial opportunities for certain interest groups or even countries, but it would also destroy the habitat of certain species and indigenous groups. It might be difficult to compare the financial implications of each consequence, but we could agree that it is morally wrong to irreversibly destroy a natural environment for short-term financial benefits. In fact, the societal issues of climate change, the exploitation of employees, and of local communities as a result of free trade that were discussed in the three examined books all generate moral dilemmas, and only a renewed moral perspective may help in these situations. 哲学的使命不是提供可以轻易实施的政策处方，而是引导一个人的推理，尤其是在面对道德困境时。道德困境之所以具有挑战性，是因为对于可用的选择，往往存在支持和反对的充分理由。虽然现代决策理论试图通过比较“为了一个单位的另一种结果（或好处），愿意交换多少数量的一种结果（或好处）”来解决权衡问题，但只有嵌入在社会规范中的价值体系，才可能对比较高度异质影响的决策有用，并打破哲学与经济学之间的壁垒（March, 2018: 85）。例如，有人可能会说，亚马逊雨林的砍伐可能会为某些利益集团甚至某些国家带来一些相关的经济机会，但它也会破坏某些物种和土著群体的栖息地。比较每种后果的经济影响可能很困难，但我们可以一致认为，为了短期经济利益而不可逆转地破坏自然环境在道德上是错误的。事实上，在三本被考察的书中讨论的气候变化、员工剥削以及自由贸易导致的当地社区剥削等社会问题，都产生了道德困境，而只有重新审视道德视角才能在这些情况下提供帮助。
At a general level, the authors of the three books agreed in proposing that, in order to address the most pressing societal and environmental challenges of our time, the decision-making calculus of the dominant actors in society (including corporations) should change from its current short-term, profitoriented, and selfish focus to one of moral responsibility. Specifically, Risse and Wollner (2019) claimed that a form of “trade justice” should be anchored on the philosophical merits of firms’ operations in distributing benefits from trade that do not derive from exploitative actions. Kitcher and Keller (2017: 89) called for the idea of an “equal moral standing” (i.e., all people should count equally in moral deliberations). Lastly, Anderson (2017: 130) highlighted that a “free society of equals” cannot be founded in an institutional corporate structure in which the vast majority of workers labor under private forms of governance consisting of arbitrary, unlimited power for employers. We also observe consistency in how the authors suggested achieving such goals through three main mechanisms. 在一般层面上，这三本书的作者都一致提出，为应对当今最紧迫的社会和环境挑战，社会中占主导地位的行为体（包括企业）的决策计算应从当前短期、以利润为导向且自私的关注点，转变为承担道德责任的方向。具体而言，Risse 和 Wollner（2019）声称，一种“贸易正义”形式应建立在企业运营在分配贸易收益时的哲学价值之上，而这些收益不应来自剥削性行动。Kitcher 和 Keller（2017：89）呼吁建立“平等道德地位”的理念（即所有人在道德审议中应具有同等的重要性）。最后，Anderson（2017：130）强调，“平等者的自由社会”不能建立在一种制度性企业结构中，在这种结构里，绝大多数工人在雇主拥有专断、无限权力的私人治理形式下劳动。我们还注意到，作者们提出通过三个主要机制实现这些目标的方式具有一致性。
First, the authors all agreed that morality matters as corporations seek to become part of the solution to the grand challenges of our time. In moral theory, considering a corporation as a subject generates requirements applying to the corporation’s actions regarding both its internal structure (e.g., salaries and treatment of employees) and its responsibility to outside actors (e.g., the communities in which the firm is located and subcontractors). Additionally, the individual moral criteria of executives and investors are necessary complementary requirements because they directly and indirectly influence the capacity of organizations to act morally. It is particularly important for this moral criterion to include assuming responsibility for the wrongs committed by entities with which the focal actor may have an arm’s-length relationship (e.g., subcontractors). 首先，所有作者都一致认为，随着企业努力成为解决我们这个时代重大挑战的一部分，道德至关重要。在道德理论中，将企业视为主体会产生对企业行为的要求，这些要求既涉及企业的内部结构（例如员工的薪资和待遇），也涉及企业对外部行为体（例如企业所在社区和分包商）的责任。此外，高管和投资者的个人道德标准是必要的补充要求，因为它们直接或间接地影响组织道德行事的能力。特别重要的是，这一道德标准应包括对焦点行为体可能存在间接关系的实体（例如分包商）所犯下的错误承担责任。
Second, education and dialogue at all levels of society will need to be reinforced in order to stimulate moral behavior and reinforce the expectations of accountability of those in power. The authors recognized the importance of informed decisions as a prerequisite for implementing moral decisions. Kitcher and Keller (2017) were particularly optimistic about the potential of education. Better education, greater attention to experts, and an increased dialogue would permit an improved understanding of the relevance of the issues involved and should allow most people to come to the conclusion that the current priorities are not acceptable for the shared future of the planet. Risse and Wollner (2019) recognized that moral justice is not possible within global supply chains unless all the key actors are brought to the discussion table. Consequently, every actor and institution has a moral duty to create the necessary conditions for equitable distribution, and dialogue will be necessary to coordinate their respective obligations. Finally, Anderson (2017) highlighted the importance of recognizing workers’ voices at the corporate governance level. Hence, rather than discussing the potential (economic) implications of this approach, the authors mainly highlighted that having a greater say is a basic human need and constructive dialogue is a moral condition of any equitable relationship. 其次，需要加强全社会各级的教育和对话，以激发道德行为并强化掌权者的问责期望。作者认识到，知情决策是实施道德决策的前提。基切尔和凯勒（2017）对教育的潜力尤为乐观。更好的教育、对专家的更多关注以及更深入的对话，将有助于人们更好地理解相关问题的重要性，并使大多数人得出当前的优先事项不符合地球共同未来的结论。里斯和沃尔纳（2019）认识到，除非所有关键参与者都参与讨论，否则全球供应链中不可能实现道德正义。因此，每个行为者和机构都有道德责任创造公平分配的必要条件，而对话对于协调各自的义务是必要的。最后，安德森（2017）强调了在公司治理层面重视工人声音的重要性。因此，作者主要强调的不是讨论这种方法的潜在（经济）影响，而是认为拥有更大的话语权是基本的人类需求，建设性对话是任何公平关系的道德条件。
Third, the examined books emphasized the significance of actors’ self-governance as a way to reinforce the morality of any decision-making effort. Similarly, they criticized governments’ actions to date for failing to create the appropriate conditions for the emergence of moral behavior among corporate actors and redress their more reprehensible actions. The reasons for this failure are manifold. For example, governments have different interests in the international trade arena, and they often try to impose their own commercial interests on others. Additionally, the inexistence of a global authority with the capacity to set common regulations generates issues with “free riders” (Risse & Wollner, 2019). In the domestic environment, regulators tend to use their power to prioritize the interests of the most influential actors rather than being committed to the least well-off (Kitcher & Keller, 2017). The books called for necessary changes in regulation, but rather than relying on external governance alone, they agreed on the importance of individual self-governance in setting the criterion of an “impartial agent who is able to reason with integrity from a reflective distance” (Rangan, 2018: 7; emphasis in the original). 第三，被审查的书籍强调了行为者自我治理的重要性，将其作为加强任何决策努力道德性的一种方式。同样，它们批评各国政府迄今为止未能为企业行为者的道德行为出现创造适当条件，并纠正其更应受谴责的行为。这种失败的原因是多方面的。例如，各国政府在国际贸易领域有不同的利益，它们经常试图将自己的商业利益强加给他人。此外，缺乏一个有能力制定共同规则的全球权威机构，导致了“搭便车者”问题（Risse & Wollner，2019）。在国内环境中，监管机构往往利用其权力优先考虑最有影响力行为者的利益，而不是致力于最弱势群体（Kitcher & Keller，2017）。这些书籍呼吁对监管进行必要的变革，但它们一致认为，除了单独依赖外部治理外，个人自我治理在设定“能够以正直态度从反思距离进行推理的公正代理”的标准方面也很重要（Rangan，2018：7；原文强调）。
The authors recognized the complexities of disrupting or changing how corporations go about making decisions that impact the well-being of society since they draw significant benefits from the status quo. For instance, Risse and Wollner (2019) acknowledged the difficulties of working through the multiple practical dimensions of managerial decision-making in multinational corporations and accepted that certain types of exploitation may be tolerated temporarily in a progression from the current unfair state of the world to a fairer one. This vision differs from that of Kitcher and Keller (2017), who were highly critical of the conditional funding of investors in developing regions and called for immediate action grounded in fair justice rather than generosity, benevolence, or shared financial interests. 作者们认识到，由于企业从现状中获得显著利益，因此改变或扰乱企业决策方式（这些决策会影响社会福祉）的复杂性。例如，Risse和Wollner（2019）承认，在跨国公司中处理管理决策的多个实际维度存在困难，并接受在从当前世界不公平状态向更公平状态的过渡中，某些类型的剥削可能会暂时被容忍。这一愿景与Kitcher和Keller（2017）的观点不同，后者对向发展中地区投资者提供有条件资助提出了强烈批评，并呼吁基于公平正义而非慷慨、仁慈或共同经济利益采取立即行动。
In fact, Risse and Wollner (2019: 251) claimed that “they are realistically-utopian in the sense that they are well within our capacities and connect to normative convictions many people have, or could find persuasive” (emphasis in the original). Similarly, Anderson (2017: 133) shared that it was beyond the scope of her research to answer the question of what the best workplace constitutions ought to be, although she suggested different ways of promoting them (e.g., the reinforced right to exit), even when the specific measures would alone be insufficient. All of the authors suggested that a new version of capitalism is possible in which powerful agents are responsible for promoting new mechanisms that provide a fair deal for the environment and for the least powerful groups in society. 事实上，Risse 和 Wollner（2019：251）声称“它们具有现实乌托邦的意义，因为它们完全在我们的能力范围内，并且与许多人拥有或可能觉得有说服力的规范信念相联系”（原始文本强调部分）。同样，Anderson（2017：133）表示，回答“最佳工作场所宪法应该是什么样的”这个问题超出了她的研究范围，尽管她提出了促进这些宪法的不同方式（例如，强化退出权），即使具体措施本身可能不足。所有作者都认为，一种新的资本主义版本是可能的，在这种版本中，有影响力的主体有责任推动新机制，为环境和社会中最弱势群体提供公平的待遇。
CONVERGENT MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS
收敛管理的影响
While the three books focused on different facets of the grand societal challenges of our time (i.e., climate change, civil rights in the workplace, and interfirm trade relationships), they converged in their critiques of important aspects of the corporate capitalist logic. None of the books claimed to provide an alternative to capitalism, but they all suggested making fundamental changes to many normative criteria with the potential of adding to the growing interest within management in reconciling the corporate ability to contribute to both performance and progress. Table 1 provides a summary of the main differences between the traditional profit perspective in management and the main aspirations of the reviewed works. In this section, we identify and discuss three main categories of suggestions that emerged from the examined books to generate transformative changes to some traditional management tenets (i.e., a revision of the primacy of the most powerful actors, the dominance of moral criteria, and the relevance of self-governance). 虽然这三本书聚焦于我们这个时代重大社会挑战的不同方面（即气候变化、职场公民权利以及企业间贸易关系），但它们在批判企业资本主义逻辑的重要方面时却达成了共识。这些书都没有声称要提供资本主义的替代方案，但它们都建议对许多规范标准进行根本性变革，这有可能增加管理学界对调和企业在实现绩效与进步方面能力的日益增长的兴趣。表1总结了传统管理视角中的主要差异以及所审查著作的主要诉求。在本节中，我们将识别并讨论从所考察的书籍中出现的三类主要建议，这些建议旨在对一些传统管理原则进行变革性调整（即修订最具影响力行为体的首要地位、道德标准的主导地位以及自我治理的相关性）。
First, the three books challenged the primacy of the most powerful actors’ interests as key guiding principles for decision-making (i.e., mostly investors’ profitability). In fact, they all assumed that rewarding investors will contribute to capitalism’s ability to promote economic wealth, but they were critical of the practice of measuring everything that firms (and society) do from a stockholder’s viewpoint. This point represents a radical departure from the dominant assumptions guiding most management research. Even those management approaches that have focused on the importance of considering multiple actors have been instrumental (the stakeholder perspective being among the most popular ones) and have claimed that stakeholders’ claims should be assessed based on their respective power and legitimacy to influence the firm’s performance (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997). Certainly, it is a challenge for most management scholars and practitioners to take into account multiple actors’ interests on their own. 首先，这三本书挑战了最强大行为体的利益作为决策关键指导原则（即主要是投资者的盈利能力）的首要地位。事实上，它们都认为奖励投资者将有助于资本主义促进经济财富的能力，但它们批评从股东视角衡量企业（和社会）所做的一切的做法。这一点代表了与指导大多数管理研究的主流假设的根本背离。即使是那些关注考虑多个行为体重要性的管理方法（利益相关者视角是最受欢迎的视角之一）也起到了工具性作用，并声称应根据利益相关者各自影响企业绩效的权力和合法性来评估其诉求（Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997）。当然，对大多数管理学者和从业者来说，单独考虑多个行为体的利益本身就是一项挑战。
TABLE 1 Three Main Differences Between the Profit Logic and the Political Philosophy Perspectives
表1 利润逻辑视角与政治哲学视角的三大主要差异
Second, thinking about multiple actors may not be enough when the interests of the dominant decision makers are biased; in fact, the works under discussion pointed out that a moral perspective must be the key guiding principle for all the participating actors. Management paradigms have tended to ignore moral criteria and philosophy (Rangan, 2018). For example, the vast majority of academic research in top tier management journals has only used a few forms of financial criteria to evaluate firms’ operations (and their executives). The fact that the very top financial performers may be also guilty of failed management when they generate negative impacts for society is usually overlooked. Thus, Kitcher and Keller (2017) highlighted the importance of prioritizing the preservation of the planet because it is a fair approach for future generations; however, previous findings have shown that firms’ progress in the socioenvironmental arena is mostly motivated by enforced regulation (Aragon-Correa, Marcus, & Vogel, 2020). Similarly, Risse and Wollner (2019) stressed that the distribution of gains from global trade is fair only if these gains were obtained without exploitation (i.e., without the abuse of power). However, the management literature has found that multinational corporations tend to focus more on actions that may help them avoid external liabilities (e.g., increasing corporate political spending; Shi, Gao, & Aguilera, 2021) rather than on those that engage with fair causes. So far, utilitarian rather than moral criteria seem to dominate even in those firms that are making positive contributions to sustainable outcomes. 其次，当主导决策者的利益存在偏见时，仅考虑多方参与者可能还不够；事实上，相关研究指出，道德视角必须是所有参与方的关键指导原则。管理范式往往忽视道德标准和哲学（Rangan, 2018）。例如，顶级管理期刊中的绝大多数学术研究仅使用几种财务标准来评估企业运营（及其高管）。那些财务表现非常出色的企业，在对社会产生负面影响时可能也存在管理失败，但这一事实通常被忽视。因此，Kitcher和Keller（2017）强调优先保护地球的重要性，因为这对后代是一种公平的做法；然而，先前的研究表明，企业在社会环境领域的进步主要是由强制监管推动的（Aragon-Correa, Marcus, & Vogel, 2020）。同样，Risse和Wollner（2019）强调，全球贸易收益的分配只有在没有剥削（即没有权力滥用）的情况下才是公平的。然而，管理文献发现，跨国公司往往更关注那些能帮助它们规避外部责任的行动（例如，增加企业政治支出；Shi, Gao, & Aguilera, 2021），而不是参与公平事业的行动。到目前为止，即使是那些对可持续成果做出积极贡献的企业，似乎也更多地遵循功利主义而非道德标准。
Third, self-governance may be a powerful means of making a difference when moral principles are king. All the authors reviewed in this essay expressed frustration with the limited effectiveness and biases of government regulation in tackling the grand societal issues of our time. They argued that governments have a role to play and looked for regulatory changes to limit the abuse of power in firms and society; nonetheless, the authors’ shared feeling was that it is the responsibility of each individual actor—particularly the most powerful ones—to avoid abusive situations. In general, while management scholars have often assumed that limitations to the external negative impacts of business operations are externally imposed by regulators (or the market), philosophers have tended to look at individual moral responsibility. For example, Suzumura (2018) explicitly supported unilateral moral reasoning as the central guide for action taken on the specific dilemmas relating to climate change. From this perspective, the self-governance of an agent who can reason with integrity is likely to guarantee more progress than a heterogeneous collection of external restrictions. 第三，当道德原则成为主导时，自我治理可能是产生影响的有力手段。本文回顾的所有作者都对政府监管在解决当今重大社会问题时的有限效力和偏见感到沮丧。他们认为政府应发挥作用，并寻求监管变革以限制企业和社会中的权力滥用；尽管如此，作者们共同的感受是，每个个体行动者——尤其是最有权势的个体——有责任避免滥用权力的情况。一般而言，虽然管理学学者通常认为企业运营外部负面影响的限制是由监管机构（或市场）外部强加的，但哲学家往往关注个体的道德责任。例如，铃村（2018）明确支持将单边道德推理作为应对气候变化相关特定困境的核心行动指南。从这个角度来看，能够正直地进行推理的行动者的自我治理，可能比由各种外部限制构成的集合更能带来进步。
CONCLUSION
结论
When it comes to climate change, abusive power in the workplace, and unfair international trading relations, the examined books suggested that the decision maker’s moral compass is centrally important to bringing about more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Although the three books differed in their structure and style, the shared wisdom that emerged from them is that we should abandon utilitarian approaches and embrace morality and self-governance at both the individual and organizational level in order to overcome the profit-making logic that dominates much of corporate action in today’s capitalist systems. Self-governance would morally drive decision makers to exercise their freedom without imposing arbitrary and abusive criteria onto other less powerful agents. However, in order for it to succeed, new social norms and a renewed emphasis on the importance of moral values will be necessary. 当谈到气候变化、职场滥用权力以及不公平的国际贸易关系时，所考察的书籍表明，决策者的道德指南针对于实现更公平和可持续的结果至关重要。尽管这三本书在结构和风格上有所不同，但它们共同传达的智慧是，我们应该摒弃功利主义方法，在个人和组织层面拥抱道德和自我治理，以克服在当今资本主义体系中主导企业行动的逐利逻辑。自我治理将在道德上推动决策者行使其自由，而不向其他权力较弱的主体强加任意和滥用的标准。然而，要使其成功，新的社会规范以及对道德价值观重要性的重新强调将是必要的。
The three examined books highlighted the importance of recognizing the moral rights of individuals along with the opportunities to make self-governance possible. Information and educating must play a role in not only changing the norms that determine what it is good and bad in corporate performance but also in training people about the importance of seeking others’ views and valuing differences. While all of the authors viewed regulatory efforts as important for achieving more just and sustainable outcomes, the advent of the business judgment rule, dual class shares and owner-led firms (e.g., Meta, Tesla, and Amazon), and the increased lobbying capabilities of corporations suggest that it is only through education and self-governance that capitalism stands a chance of reforming itself from within and promoting both economic wealth and societal well-being (Rangan, 2018). 这三本被考察的书籍强调了认识个人道德权利的重要性，以及实现自我管理的机会。信息传播和教育不仅必须在改变决定企业绩效好坏的规范方面发挥作用，还必须在培养人们重视他人观点和差异的重要性方面发挥作用。虽然所有作者都认为监管努力对于实现更公正和可持续的结果很重要，但商业判断规则的出现、双重股权结构和所有者主导的公司（例如Meta、特斯拉和亚马逊）以及企业游说能力的增强表明，只有通过教育和自我管理，资本主义才有机会从内部进行改革，并促进经济财富和社会福祉（Rangan，2018）。
However, opacity and misunderstandings about the real roots of the sustainability challenges of contemporary capitalist societies may disrupt their potential for improvement. One of Anderson’s (2017) main concerns was that both the theory of the firm and public discourse often deny that workers are subject to arbitrary forms of government. Kitcher and Keller (2017) and Risse and Wollner (2019) expressed similar concerns about our limited collective capacity to identify how the unbalanced distribution of power and actors’ amoral orientations are the main reasons for the terrible outcomes around trade inequalities and climate change. Consequently, integrating morality into the business paradigm is the most imperative challenge to overcome if we are to transform fundamentally how corporations tackle the grand sustainability challenges of our time. 然而，对当代资本主义社会可持续性挑战真正根源的不透明性和误解可能会破坏其改进的潜力。安德森（2017）的主要担忧之一是，企业理论和公共话语往往否认工人受到任意形式的政府支配。基切尔和凯勒（2017）以及里瑟和沃尔纳（2019）表达了类似的担忧，即我们有限的集体能力难以识别权力分配不平衡和行为者的非道德取向是贸易不平等和气候变化等可怕后果的主要原因。因此，如果我们要从根本上改变企业应对当今时代重大可持续性挑战的方式，将道德融入商业范式是最紧迫的挑战。
REFERENCES
参考文献
Aguilera, R. V., Aragón-Correa, J. A., Marano, V., & Tashman, P. A. 2021. The corporate governance of environmental sustainability: A review and proposal for more integrated research. Journal of Management, 47: 14681497.
阿吉莱拉，R. V.，阿拉贡-科雷亚，J. A.，马拉诺，V.，& 塔什曼，P. A. 2021. 环境可持续性的公司治理：文献综述与更整合研究的建议。《管理杂志》，47：14681497。
Alvarez, S. A., Zander, U., Barney, J. B., & Afuah, A. 2020. From the editors: Developing a theory of the firm for the 21st century. Academy of Management Review, 45: 711716.
Alvarez, S. A., Zander, U., Barney, J. B., & Afuah, A. 2020. From the editors: Developing a theory of the firm for the 21st century. Academy of Management Review, 45: 711716.
Anderson, E. 2017. Private government: How employers rule our lives (and why we don’t talk about it). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
安德森，E. 2017. 私人政府：雇主如何支配我们的生活（以及我们为何对此避而不谈）。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社。
Aragon-Correa, J. A., Marcus, A. A., & Vogel, D. 2020. The effects of mandatory and voluntary regulatory pressures on firms’ environmental strategies: A review and recommendations for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 14: 339365.
Aragon-Correa, J. A., Marcus, A. A., & Vogel, D. 2020. 强制性和自愿性监管压力对企业环境战略的影响：回顾与未来研究建议。《管理学会年刊》，14：339365。
Barney, J., & Rangan, S. 2019. Editors’ comments: Why do we need a special issue on new theoretical perspectives on market-based economic systems? Academy of Management Review, 44: 15.
巴尼（Barney, J.）和拉甘（Rangan, S.）. 2019. 编辑评论：为何我们需要关于基于市场的经济体系新理论视角的特刊？《管理学会评论》，44: 15.
DesJardine, M. R., Marti, E., & Durand, R. 2021. Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 851872.
DesJardine, M. R., Marti, E., & Durand, R. 2021. 为什么激进对冲基金瞄准对社会负责的公司：企业社会责任信号传递的反应成本。《管理学会期刊》，64：851872。
Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. 1983. Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, 26: 301325.
法玛（Fama, E. F.）和詹森（Jensen, M. C.），1983年。《所有权与控制权的分离》。《法律与经济学杂志》，26卷：301-325页。
Freeman, R. E. 2010. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
弗里曼，R. E. 2010. 战略管理：利益相关者方法。英国剑桥：剑桥大学出版社。
Friedman, M. 1970, September 13. A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/ 1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-socialresponsibility-of-business-is-to.html
弗里德曼，M. 1970年9月13日。弗里德曼学说：企业的社会责任是增加利润。《纽约时报》。https://www.nytimes.com/ 1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-socialresponsibility-of-business-is-to.html
Henderson, R. 2020. Reimagining capitalism in a world on fire. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
亨德森，R. 2020. 《在燃烧的世界中重塑资本主义》. 纽约，纽约州：公共事务出版社.
Jain, T., & Jamali, D. 2016. Looking inside the black box: The effect of corporate governance on corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 24: 253273.
Jain, T., & Jamali, D. 2016. 探究黑箱内部：公司治理对企业社会责任的影响。《公司治理》，24：253273。
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 305360.
詹森，M. C.，& 梅克林，W. H. 1976. 企业理论：管理行为、代理成本与所有权结构。《金融经济学杂志》，3：305-360。
Kaplan, S. 2019. The 360 corporation: From stakeholder trade-offs to transformation. Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press.
卡普兰，S. 2019. 360度公司：从利益相关者权衡到变革。康涅狄格州斯坦福：斯坦福大学出版社。
Kitcher, P., & Keller, E. F. 2017. The seasons alter: How to save our planet in six acts. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing.
基彻（Kitcher, P.）和凯勒（Keller, E. F.），2017年。《季节变迁：六步拯救地球》。纽约，纽约州：利弗莱特出版公司。
Lazzarini, S. 2021. Capitalism and management research: The worst of times, the best of times. Academy of Management Review, 46: 613622.
Lazzarini, S. 2021. 资本主义与管理研究：最糟糕的时代，也是最好的时代。《管理学会评论》，46：613-622。
March, J. G. 2018. Decision processes and value endogeneity. In S. Rangan (Ed.), Capitalism beyond mutuality? Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science: 8489. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
March, J. G. 2018. 决策过程与价值内生性。载于 S. Rangan（编），《超越互惠的资本主义？整合哲学与社会科学的视角》：8489。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853886.
米切尔，R. K.，阿格尔，B. R.，&伍德，D. J. 1997. 走向利益相关者识别与显著性理论：界定谁和什么真正重要的原则。《管理学会评论》，22：853-886。
Piketty, T. 2018. Capital in the twenty-first century. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
皮凯蒂，T. 2018. 21世纪资本论。马萨诸塞州波士顿：哈佛大学出版社。
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9: 97118.
Porter, M. E., & Van der Linde, C. 1995. 迈向环境与竞争力关系的新认知。《经济展望杂志》，9：97-118。
Rangan, S. 2018. Introduction. Capitalism beyond mutuality. In S. Rangan (Ed.), Capitalism beyond mutuality? Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science: 122. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Rangan, S. 2018. 引言。超越互惠的资本主义。载于 S. Rangan（编），《超越互惠的资本主义？整合哲学与社会科学的视角》：122。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2021. Microfoundations of framing: The interactional production of collective action frames in the Occupy movement. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 378408.
Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. 2021. 框架的微观基础：占领运动中集体行动框架的互动性建构。《管理学会期刊》，64：378408。
Risse, M., & Wollner, G. 2019. On trade justice: A philosophical plea for a new global deal. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Risse, M., & Wollner, G. 2019. 论贸易正义：对新全球协议的哲学呼吁。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Seidl, D. 2013. Managing legitimacy in complex and heterogeneous environments: Sustainable development in a globalized world. Journal of Management Studies, 50: 259284.
舍勒尔，A. G.，帕拉佐，G.，& 塞德尔，D. 2013. 在复杂且异质环境中管理合法性：全球化世界中的可持续发展。《管理研究杂志》，50：259284。
Shi, W., Gao, C., & Aguilera, R. V. 2021. The liabilities of foreign institutional ownership: Managing political dependence through corporate political spending. Strategic Management Journal, 42: 84113.
施，W.，高，C.，& 阿吉莱拉，R. V. 2021. 外资机构持股的劣势：通过企业政治支出管理政治依赖。《战略管理杂志》，42：84113。
Smith, A. 1776 [2010]. The wealth of nations. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London, U.K.: Harriman House Limited.
Smith, A. 1776 [2010]. 《国富论》：对国民财富的性质和原因的研究。英国伦敦：Harriman House Limited.
Society for Progress. 2021. The society. Retrieved from http://societyforprogress.org/
进步协会。2021年。该协会。从http://societyforprogress.org/获取。
Suzumura, K. 2018. Intergenerational equity and responsibility for future generations. In S. Rangan (Ed.), Capitalism beyond mutuality? Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science: 107131. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
铃村，K. 2018. 代际公平与对后代的责任。载于 S. 兰加恩（编），《超越互助性的资本主义？整合哲学与社会科学的视角》：107131。英国牛津：牛津大学出版社。
Tsui, A. S., Enderle, G., & Jiang, K. 2018. Income inequality in the United States: Reflections on the role of corporations. Academy of Management Review, 43: 156168.
Tsui, A. S., Enderle, G., & Jiang, K. 2018. 美国的收入不平等：企业作用的思考。《管理学会评论》，43：156168。
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future (Brundtland Commission Report). Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/ content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf 世界环境与发展委员会。1987年。《我们共同的未来》（布伦特兰委员会报告）。取自https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf
Ruth V. Aguilera (r.aguilera@northeastern.edu) is the distinguished Darla and Frederick Brodsky trustee professor in global business at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University and a visiting professor at ESADE Business School. She is interested in research at the intersection of strategic organization and international business with a focus on comparative corporate governance and corporate social responsibility. 露丝·V·阿吉莱拉（r.aguilera@northeastern.edu）是东北大学达莫尔-麦肯商学院杰出的达拉和弗雷德里克·布罗茨基全球商业信托教授，同时也是ESADE商学院的客座教授。她专注于战略组织与国际商业交叉领域的研究，尤其关注比较公司治理和企业社会责任。
J. Alberto Aragón-Correa (jaragon@ugr.es) is the Alight talent and leadership chair and professor of management at the University of Granada. His research explores the relationships between organizations and the natural environment with a focus on the sustainability implications of strategic and governance decisions. J. Alberto Aragón-Correa (jaragon@ugr.es) is the Alight talent and leadership chair and professor of management at the University of Granada. His research explores the relationships between organizations and the natural environment with a focus on the sustainability implications of strategic and governance decisions.
Valentina Marano (v.marano@northeastern.edu) is an associate professor in the Department of International Business and Strategy at the D’Amore-McKim School of Business at Northeastern University. Her research explores the practice adoption, organizational legitimacy and performance of multinational corporations from both emerging and advanced economies and broader issues of comparative corporate governance and corporate sustainability. 瓦伦蒂娜·马拉诺（v.marano@northeastern.edu）是东北大学达莫尔-麦金商学院国际商务与战略系的副教授。她的研究探索了来自新兴经济体和发达经济体的跨国公司的实践采用、组织合法性和绩效，以及比较公司治理和公司可持续性等更广泛的问题。
Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确书面许可，其内容不得复制、通过电子邮件发送给多个网站或发布到邮件列表。不过，用户可以为个人使用打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章。