Search results

In this time of disequilibrium, old approaches are not capable of meeting our growing challenges. In addition to worrying about customers, employees, products, and services, managers and business owners have to consider matters such as globalization, the environment, instant communications, and technologies once only imagined in science fiction. Not surprisingly, there is a growing perception that we need new ways of thinking about business, economics, and society. The aim of this paper is to address this urgent matter.

This paper addresses this urgent matter through the lens of an underlying theme of this issue: “care is worthy of investment, policy, and practice because it delivers both measurable results and a more humane world”.

Offering a perspective that goes beyond the capitalism vs socialism debate, it shows that the failure to recognize the economic value of the work of caring and caregiving has been a major obstacle to more equitable and sustainable ways of living and making a living.

It proposes measures of economic health that take into account the value of care, as well as the large, still generally ignored, contributions of women, who do most of the care work in both market and nonmarket economic sectors.

It places economic valuations in their social context from the perspective of two new social categories: the partnership system and the domination system, revealing the imbalanced gendered values inherent in the latter.

It shows the financial value of caring and proposes economic inventions – economic measurements, policies, and practices – that support caring for people, starting in early childhood, as well as caring for our natural environment.

Many academic men are sympathetic to issues of gender equity and supportive of feminist goals, but see feminism as basically irrelevant to their interests. Yet they may be engaged in research, teaching, and/or community activities which advance feminist objectives, never examining their efforts in a feminist framework. Too often feminism has been defined as a “woman only” arena, or in competitive terms of male versus female privilege, rather than a cooperative effort to improve the quality of life for everyone. The few men who have attempted to embrace a feminist worldview as their own have been marginalized by women who view them with suspicion and by men who see them as gender traitors (or as a friend says, “The worm in the sperm”). Such a marginalized status promises a career which can be uncomfortable and insecure. We must expand the definition of feminism to include cooperative ventures of men and women working together to bring about positive social change.

The purposes of this conceptual paper are fivefold: first, to present a resource definition of care in work organizations that allows business and its managers to reconnect human wealth with social progress and economic wealth in order to create a responsible, sustainable, and healthy world; second, to examine the sociological and feminist origins of care; third, to discuss identifiable qualities of care; also, to compare and contrast care with the knowledge resource; and then, to identify future research directions for care.

Theory development and literature review were carried out to present a conceptual definition of care.

A definition of care is proposed: care is a universal construct and is inherent in all human beings; care is the core foundation, the core energy, of all human activity, work, and interaction; care may be seen as a socioeconomic resource that acts similar to the knowledge resource and may be built into organizational strategy, management, and leadership and serves as a measurable and trainable managerial capability; and care comprises identifiable qualities in individual, relational, and managerial decision‐making categories. This definition has important cross‐cultural implications and is valid for any culture, team, and organization.

This paper is conceptual in nature and lays the foundation for further research, which is outlined in the discussion. Follow‐on work should include case studies and other qualitative research methods as well as quantitative research methods to substantiate the definition with evidence.

In this paper, the author proposes that care lies at the core of being human. Care energizes all human work activity and may be employed by leaders, managers, and strategists across all organizations and cultures to maximize human potential, integrate care with the wealth creation process, and create healthy, sustainable organizations. Care is proposed as a driver for economic success and human well‐being that can give rise to the next major transformation in business and thinking. The proposed care definition, and especially, its comparison to the knowledge resource, offers scholars and practitioners a new orientation to apply to the value creation process in organizations. Care can be seen as an essential aspect of management practice, organizational strategy, and socioeconomic transformation.

This paper offers a unique and profound definition of care. Care has never been studied or examined in terms of energy or socioeconomic resource before. It leverages the definition of care associated with ethics of care research and provides a broader and deeper means to energize and transform work environments, management practice, and organizational strategy.

The Rome Statute, especially Article 7 on Crimes against Humanity, and the principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) apply to widespread violations of human rights that a State fails to prohibit or protect against. Yet far too little attention has been paid to systemic crimes that take the lives of many millions of women and girls every year. The purpose of this paper is to detail a proposal to use international law to hold governments and/or their agents accountable when they fail to protect the female half of humanity from widespread and egregious crimes of violence.

To accelerate the movement to make women's human rights a global priority, it examines: first, expanding the interpretation of the Rome statute, particularly Article 7 – Crimes against Humanity. Second, where necessary, amending the statute to include gender in addition to race and ethnicity.

Seven crimes and their personal, social, and economic consequences are analyzed, and legal remedies are detailed: selective female infanticide and denial to girl children of food and health care; the sex trade and sexual slavery; female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C); domestic violence (from murder in the name of honor and bride burning to acid throwing and battery); rape; child marriage and forced marriage.

This paper explores a new approach for use by scholars, attorneys, and human rights activists to end the global pandemic of violence against the female half of humanity by invoking the Rome Statute and/or amending it to protect women and girls. It provides a new legal and sociological analysis.

Examines the contemporary discourse on environmental sustainability, organizational change and transformational leadership in the larger context of a shift from a dominator to a partnership model of social and ideological organization. Traces the historic tension between these two models, and argues that this tension is coming to a head today because at our level of technological development a dominator model is not sustainable. Analyses some of the key themes in organizational change writings that address environmental sustainability, proposing that there is an implicit subtext in much of this literature relating to conventional gender roles and relations. Suggests that, as this subtext becomes more visible, appropriate changes in policy can be more effectively made.

To date, sustainability in technology firms has focused on improving outputs while maintaining the same inputs. The purpose of this paper is to propose a six‐stage model for enhancing inputs as well as outputs, named sustainable human capital. The paper extends traditional views of individuals as human capital, measured as formal education and direct experience to incorporate more holistic and humanistic views of informal education and indirectly related experience. This allows technology firms, whose lifeblood is innovation, to increase employee satisfaction and performance, quality and quantity of technology firm innovation, and societal well‐being in the form of sustainable products and services.

This paper extends concepts in innovation management to build a holistic model of employees as sustainable human capital. By bridging theory and practice, this paper provides a framework for knowledge‐building partnerships and, thus, relational wealth, or the value created by and for a firm through its internal relations among and with employees.

A model of sustainable human capital starts with pre‐hiring processes (raw materials), on‐boarding (design stage), training and development (production stage), developing external partnerships and integrating individual employees with the ecosystem (distribution stage), building internal relationships through mentoring (use and maintenance stage), and employee's exit through succession planning (recovery stage).

Technology managers have been utilizing a lifecycle approach for product innovation, yet have de‐coupled the product from the people, the fundamental source of innovation. Thus, re‐incorporating the human aspect to the lifecycle approach offers practices for holistic engagement of employees in innovation. Just as management literature pushed economists to shift their views of employees from homogeneous units of human capital to heterogeneous individuals, sustainability literature must evolve in its approach to start thinking of employees as discrete individuals with differentiated skills that change over time.

The purpose of the present analysis is to show that HR systems are not always designed in ways that consider the well‐being of employees. In particular, performance metric methods seem to be designed with organizational goals in mind while focusing less on what employees need and desire.

A literature review and multiple case‐study method was utilized.

The analysis showed that performance metrics should be revaluated by executives and HR professionals if they seek to develop socially responsible organizational cultures which care about the well‐being of employees.

The paper exposes the fact that performance appraisal techniques can be rooted in methodologies that ignore or deemphasize the value of employee well‐being. The analysis provides a context in which all HR practices can be questioned in relation to meeting the standards of a social justice agenda in the area of corporate social responsibility.