Suchergebnisse

By JOSH SEIDMAN Like Matthew Holt, I have also been ranting about the fact that "We're spending way too much money on stuff that is the wrong thing." As Matthew said, "it'sContinue reading...

enth.

Scientific literature on social enterprise is at an impasse. Either social enterprises maximize profits to have a chance of impact investment or they prevent mission drift by avoiding profit maximization along the lines of traditional philanthropy. This article breaks this stalemate by building on the facts that constrain the daily operation of a social enterprise. It is submitted that a social enterprise is a mechanism for value creation that forgoes value capture and engages in value devolution to serve a wider vulnerable clientele. The term value devolution implies giving away market power for consumers' sake.

Justificatory neutrality, as held by Nagel, holds that the state is only legitimate if it can be justified on the basis of the value-beliefs that we all share. I argue that this theory has faults that are avoided by Rawls's alternative of stability for the right reasons as achieved by a reasonable overlapping consensus on the political norms for regulating the basic structure of society. However, neither approach explains why we should be concerned with people's value-beliefs, a gap which I begin to fill. I argue that justificatory neutrality is inadequate in two ways. Firstly, neutrality cannot serve as a guiding ideal, in that we must appeal to other values in order to determine when and how we should be neutral. Secondly, in excluding all controversial ideals, it has no guarantee that a) those values shared will be adequate for settling political questions, and/or b) that some of those values excluded aren't significant to the people who believe in them in ways that prevent their accepting justifications that appeal solely to the shared values. I argue that Rawls's theory avoids these problems but that his idea of public reason is both unnecessary and in tension with the aspiration to achieve an actual reasonable overlapping consensus. Drawing on Raz I argue that neither Nagel nor Rawls offer adequate explanations of why we should be concerned with justifiability to people on the basis of their value-beliefs. I provide such an explanation in terms of the value of being able to endorse the course of our own lives. This value grounds reasons to be responsive to people's (possibly mistaken) value-beliefs in political justifications---though, since this is not the only value to be considered, sometimes other reasons may settle the matter.

AbstractThe studies to date on service research have provided a generic overview on customer's positive value‐in‐use (value creation) as well as negative value‐in‐use (value destruction). Surprisingly, very little attention is made to exploring the experiential nature of value‐in‐use. This study aims to conceptualize the experiential nature of value‐in‐use where positive value‐in‐use results in value destruction in some situations (and value creation commonly), and negative value‐in‐use results in value creation in some situations (and value destruction normally). By integrating value‐in‐experience and value‐in‐context, the study proposed experience‐dominant logic (EDL) as an important paradigm for value creation in the customer journey. The EDL is backed by the four foundational premises for which the insights are taken from literature as well as through in‐depth interviews with customers and managers of the E‐beauty services. The research also provides a framework for future research avenues as well as various future research directions.

"Betrachtet man die Restrukturierung weltmarktorientierter Konzerne seit den 1990er Jahren, so erscheint der Übergang zu kapitalmarktorientierten Formen der Unternehmenssteuerung als Zäsur. Nachfolgend wird die These vertreten, dass sich hinter dem Konzept des Shareholder Value heterogene Praktiken verbergen, die sich bereits vor der Finanzmarktkrise ständig wandelten. Punktuelle Modifikationen und Korrekturen sind wahrscheinlich und längst im Gange. Im Selbstlauf wird sich aber nichts daran ändern, dass ähnliche Konzepte auch weiterhin als Transfermechanismus für Managementstrategien genutzt werden, die Druck auf Arbeitsstandards und Mitbestimmung ausüben." (Autorenreferat)