Tag Archives: #MGMTResearch

Birkbeck hosts ‘Environmental Finance for the Common Good’ Conference

The conference, organised by Dr Ellen Yu, was generously funded by the Money Macro and Finance Society and the Department of Management.

A group of people standing in the lecture theatre.

Birkbeck’s Department of Management was delighted to host the ‘Environmental Finance for the Common Good’ conference from 31 March – 1 April 2022.

More than 170 people registered for events during the two-day hybrid conference, which was organised by Dr Ellen Yu, Senior Lecturer in Finance.

Speakers included representation from international organisations and industry (the World Bank, Climate Policy Initiative, the US Conference Board, and the CFA Society of the UK), religious communities (the Vatican and the SGI UK), and academic peers from all over the world, who presented and shared ideas on environmental finance.

The conference aimed to understand the investment implications of environmental and social factors across different economies to achieve greater common good. Workshops over the two days included studies from industrial and middle- and low- income countries, providing a platform for all people working on environmental finance issues to discuss the latest insights and foster dialogue between academics and practitioners.

The diversity of speakers and attendees was highlighted at the evening keynote lecture, where representatives from industry, academia and religious communities came together to discuss pathways to a more inclusive, greener future.

The conference was funded by the Money Macro Society and the Department of Management.

Further Information

Share

Thriving at different stages of an academic career

Professor Morten Huse discussed making an impact at different stages in the scholarly life cycle in his second talk for Birkbeck’s School of Business, Economics and Informatics.

On Tuesday 15 March, Birkbeck’s School of Business, Economics and Informatics was delighted to welcome back Professor Morten Huse for the second talk in a series discussing ‘How to become and thrive as an impactful scholar.’

The series, organised and chaired by Dr Muthu De Silva, Assistant Dean (Research), aims to develop Birkbeck’s scholarly community and to support academic colleagues in their research endeavours. The second talk, ‘Thriving at different stages of an academic career’ draws on insights from chapter 9 of Morten’s book ‘Resolving the crisis in research by changing the game’.

Morten encouraged attendees to consider their academic career as a life cycle, reflecting on his own experience of being affiliated with many different universities and the lessons learned along the way. He reflected on some key philosophies that have guided his academic career:

  • ‘Ritorno al passato’ – the need to reconsider the modern approach to scholarship.
  • ‘From POP (publish or perish) culture to a sharing philosophy’.
  • ‘Life is too short to drink bad wine’ – we don’t have unlimited time, so it is important to prioritise what matters most.

What is true scholarship?

Morten commented: “It is easy to think that we are measuring scholarship by publications,” arguing that, as early as the 1990s, academics were already feeling pressurised to publish in certain journals. This has resulted in ‘hammer and lamp syndrome’, where scholars address problems that are already under the lamp, i.e., where data is already available, instead of seeking out difficult problems, as this is an easier route to getting published. Similarly, Morten explained: “If you have a hammer, you see the world as a nail and will look for the easiest way to getting published.”

Reflecting on Boyer (1996), Morten argued that scholarship is not what scholars do, but who they are. When aiming for excellence in research, the goal should reach beyond getting published to thinking about the impact research is having. According to the European Research Council, excellence in research involves:

  • Proposing and conducting groundbreaking and frontier research
  • Creative and independent thinking
  • Achievements beyond the state of the art
  • Innovation potential
  • Sound leadership in training and advancing young scientists
  • Second and third order impact.

Defining your scholarly ambition

Morten noted that academic careers can look different for everyone and that scholarly ambitions are personal and will vary. Career paths can take a teaching, administrative or research route and reach could vary from local, national, to global.

Morten reflected: “It’s easy not to do the proper reflections, integrations and scholarly enquiry. It’s easy not to make a contribution to developing the scholarly community. It’s easy not to give priority to doing something for society. In reality, the scholarly life cycle is not just about getting published; there is so much more that is needed.”

He shared an image of what the scholarly life cycle could look like, enabling senior scholars to give back to junior colleagues:

Graph showing the different stages of an academic career.

We would like to thank Professor Huse for a thought-provoking presentation and discussion. The next event in this series will take place in May, where we hope to have the opportunity to bring our community together in person. Details to follow soon on the Department of Management events page.

Further Information

Share

Are you truly sustainable? An investigation of de-certified B-Corps

Dr Silvia Blasi and Professor Silvia Rita Sedita shared insights from their research into B-Corps and the tendency towards de-certification in this Responsible Business Centre Seminar.

In response to the growing challenges of social and environmental issues, an increasing number of companies are looking to use business as a force for good to solve society’s big problems, not just for profit. B Lab, a not-for-profit organisation, has taken the lead in providing the necessary infrastructure for this shift.

However, as of April 2019, at least 930 registered B Corps were no longer certified on the B Lab database. What is the reason for this tendency towards de-certification, and what could be done to support businesses to improve their social and environmental impact?

On Tuesday 22 February 2022, Dr Silvia Blasi and Professor Silvia Rita Sedita joined Birkbeck’s Responsible Business Centre for a seminar on their latest research into this phenomenon. The paper discussed in this seminar is part of a project exploring B Corps funded by the University of Padova.

What is a B-Corp?

The B-Corp movement was launched in 2006 by B Lab, an American not-for-profit organisation, with the aim of creating an infrastructure for a new sector that would use the power of private enterprise to create public benefit.

The first 19 B Corps were certified in 2007 and the movement has rapidly gained momentum, with high-profile names such as Patagonia, Danone and Unilever becoming B-Corps. At the time of writing, there are now 3682 certified B Corps in over 70 countries and 150 industries.

The B Corps movement is accelerating a global shift to build a more inclusive and sustainable economy. Certification helps entrepreneurs to measure, capture and legitimise their social efforts (Woods, 2016). To obtain certification, an organisation must achieve a B impact assessment of 80 or more out of 200.

The growth of a movement

Since 2016, the number of companies that have used the B Impact assessment around the world has grown exponentially. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of B Corp certifications increased by 26%.

Dr Silvia Blasi noted that a rise in the number of B Corps has corresponded with increased scientific outputs in this field. A recent paper by the presenters conducts a literature review in this area and provides a clear-cut academic explanation of B-Corps.

Why is there a tendency towards decertification for B Corps?

Despite promising statistics showing the rise in new B Corp certifications, Silvia highlighted that in 2019, 930 B Corps were no longer certified. Her research aims to explore the reasons behind decertification.

Although there are no studies to date which explore decertification specifically, an analysis of the literature points to three main causes of decertification:

  • Financial problems – there is a high cost associated with (re)certification that poses a barrier to organisations.
  • Low economic benefits – organisations that do not see an increase in income as a result of certification are more likely to decertify in the future.
  • Perceived complexity of the certification process – perceptions of the certification process as a barrier and uncertainty about future requirements are a key factor behind decertification.

The presenters identified three further factors to explore that could impact on likelihood to decertify:

  • Size – small and medium-sized enterprises are at higher risk of decertification than larger companies. This could be due to limited resource and legitimacy challenges faced by smaller and younger firms.
  • Sustainability performance – research to date suggests that sustainability performance does not impact whether an organisation will become decertified.
  • Financial performance – Cao, Gehman and Grimes (2017) underline that de-certified companies have lower average sales compared to certified B Corps.

The study so far

Silvia shared insights from the presenters’ work-in-progress research paper exploring the reasons for decertification.

The research aimed to answer two questions:

  1. In comparison with currently certified B Corps, what are the main features of companies that did not maintain their B Corp certification?
  2. Are there any relationships between their decertification decision with their financial performance and sustainability performance?

The study sample comprised 1,272 companies, whose data was gathered from B Lab impact data and financial data from Orbis. Logistical regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between social, environmental and financial performance outcomes and B Corp decertification status.

The researchers found a theoretical assertion that B Corp decertification is susceptible to company size, with SMEs being particularly vulnerable. Organisations from Global South or developing economies also had a higher likelihood of decertification. In contrast, companies with higher operating revenue and strong governance had a weaker tendency towards decertification.

Company sector, community and location were not significant.

Silvia emphasised the importance of governance and workers as factors which have a significant role in shaping the probability of decertification, as these give priority to strategies and practices that benefit internal stakeholders. Inward investments in sustainability performance play a critical role in influencing the company’s decision to continue pursuing B Corp certification or not.

What are the implications for policy?

The findings of the study can help to identify signals of potential decertification so that certifying bodies can modify policies and processes to reduce decertification rates and companies can adopt new strategies and practices to retain certified status.

Supporting policies or company strategies could begin with boosting inward investment related to corporate governance, employee benefits, work environment etc. to ensure a solid basis for improving overall sustainability performance.

We would like to thank Dr Blasi and Professor Sedita for an insightful and thought-provoking discussion.

Further Information

Share

Department of Management Meets the Editor: Professor Jonathan Doh

Researchers aspiring to publish in Journal of Management Studies joined Birkbeck’s Department of Management for an hour with General Editor Professor Jonathan Doh.

Birkbeck’s Department of Management was delighted to welcome Professor Jonathan Doh for the seventh event in our Meet the Editor series on Monday 14 February 2022.

The seminar was chaired by Dr Muthu De Silva, Assistant Dean for Research in Birkbeck’s School of Business, Economics and Informatics, who welcomed colleagues from all over the world to the online session.

Professor Doh is General Editor of the Journal of Management Studies and was Editor in Chief of the Journal of World Business from 2014-18. He is Associate Dean of Research and Global Engagement, Rammrath Chair in International Business, Co-Faculty Director of the Center for Global Leadership, and Professor of Management at the Villanova School of Business. With over 130 publications and 18,000 Google Scholar citations to his name, Professor Doh brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to our Meet the Editor series.

Introduction to the Journal of Management Studies

The Journal of Management Studies (JMS) is a consistently highly ranked, multidisciplinary journal with a long-established history of excellence in management research. It has a 5-year Impact Factor of 10.960 and has been on the FT 50 list since 2010.

JMS has three General Editors and nine Associate Editors based across Europe, Asia and North America and has an Editorial Review Board of over 200 academics.

While JMS is a general management journal, there are several factors that set it apart from other journals in the field:

  • JMS considers itself to be especially pluralistic, with a range of different contributions from different places. The journal is open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical underpinnings.
  • JMS Editors have a fixed term of office and cannot publish in JMS, aside from Editorials and Introductions to commissioned content.
  • JMS Editors consult another member of the editorial team in the advanced stages of revision to ensure consistency in the decision-making process.
  • JMS has a dedicated Editorial Office team to assist with any issues or queries regarding paper submissions.

Why become a reviewer?

Professor Doh encouraged members of the audience, particularly early career researchers, to consider volunteering as a reviewer. For many Editors, becoming a reviewer is the first step in their editorial journey. Reviewing improves scholarly skills and is an opportunity to give back to the academic community. Those interested in becoming a reviewer for JMS can apply via Scholar One.

What are the publication criteria for the Journal of Management Studies?

JMS publishes innovative empirical and conceptual articles which advance knowledge of management and organisation. Professor Doh stressed that editors are particularly interested in unusual, surprising or challenging papers with a strong theoretical orientation.

Common reasons for rejection include lack of clear contribution, lack of methodological rigour or a clear and appropriate theoretical framework and lack of clear implications for management theory and practice.

In 2021, submissions to JMS reached an all-time high of 1,260. The majority of submissions come from Europe and Asia, with North America being the next highest contributor.

What is the review process for the Journal of Management Studies?

JMS operates a double-blind peer review process. Papers that go out for review typically receive three reviews drawn from the JMS Editorial Board as well as ad hoc reviewers and they aim to provide a decision within three months. Any paper that is to go out for review is screened for overlap with previous papers using the iThenticate software.

Typically, manuscripts will be revised two to four times before acceptance. Time from acceptance to appearing in print is approximately one year.

The desk rejection rate for JMS currently stands at 66% and the rejection rate after the first round of reviews is 26%. The acceptance rate is around 3%, however Professor Doh encouraged researchers to view this in the context of a vast increase in submissions year on year.

What types of articles does the Journal of Management Studies publish?

While the bulk of JMS publications are regular articles, Professor Doh highlighted the value in review articles. This could be particularly relevant for PhD students, who will have conducted a literature review as part of their thesis. In particular, JMS looks for literature review articles that add value in terms of theory contribution by situating and critiquing the literature, identifying any gaps and suggesting new avenues for research. JMS also considers meta-analyses as review articles.

The journal also publishes short essays, ‘JMS Says’, intended to catalyse new thinking and ‘point-counterpoints’ articles, which put forward a position or argument paired with one or more other articles proposing alternative arguments or perspectives. Essays are considered on an ad hoc basis. Professor Doh reflected on the merits of collaborations between junior and senior scholars and encouraged junior scholars to consider such collaborations when submitting to JMS says.

Instructions on how to submit to the different areas of JMS can be found online.

We would like to thank Professor Doh for an insightful and informative session.

Further Information

Share