Special Issue Call for Papers: What do social and environmental responsibilities mean in the ‘Global South’? Towards pluriversal perspectives in management studies
Special Issue Editors:
• Pilar Acosta, i3-CRG, École polytechnique, CNRS, Institut polytechnique de Paris,
pilar.acosta@polytechnique.edu
• Bobby Banerjee, Bayes Business School, City, University of London
bobby.banerjee@city.ac.uk
• Joel Bothello, Concordia University, joel.bothello@concordia.ca
• Stefanie Habersang, Leuphana University of Lüneburg,
stefanie.habersang@leuphana.de
• Stella M. Nkomo, University of Pretoria, stella.nkomo@up.ac.za
JMS editor: Kristina Potočnik, University of Edinburgh, kristina.potocnik@ed.ac.uk
BACKGROUND
For management scholars and practitioners alike, organizational responsibility has been the
object of study and intense debates for decades (Bowen, 2013; Carroll, 1999; Matten and
Moon, 2008; Palazzo and Scherer, 2008; Post et al., 2002). This enduring discussion has its
roots in a historical continuum of social and environmental responsibility practices that can
be traced back centuries (Hielscher and Husted, 2020; Hoffman, 2007; Husted, 2015).
Despite the multifaceted and context dependent nature of social and environmental
responsibility (Matten and Moon, 2008) this area of study has been confined to certain
types of businesses located in certain geographical regions tackling particular types of
problems.
Consequently, we know little about what social and environmental responsibility looks like
in non-Western contexts (i.e. contexts outside North America, Europe and Australia). This
scholarly oversight is particularly noteworthy given the significance of non-Western
contexts in both theory construction and the advancement, refinement, and interrogation
of prevailing theoretical frameworks (Wickert et al., 2024), especially as they pertain to
economic efficiency and effectiveness of non-Western businesses (Marquis and Raynard,
2015). Nonetheless, we lack a corresponding examination of how non-Western firms (as
well as other types of organizations) attend to social and environmental issues.
In this special issue we seek to address this limitation by delving into the meanings and
forms of social and environmental responsibility in the ‘Global South’. The ‘Global South’
has been primarily embraced as a political and epistemological construction that
represents the struggle against the economic, political and ontological hegemony of the
‘Global North’ over the rest of the world (Boaventura de Sousa and Meneses, 2020). While
the concept of the ‘Global South’ has become a promising site for collective struggle in the
pursuit of geopolitical, ecological, economic and epistemic change, its transformative
possibilities have not been fully realized (Schneider, 2017).
We seek to delve into the complexities and possibilities offered by the concept of ‘Global
South’ to build, integrate and inform theory from locations that have long been excluded
from mainstream discourse. This has been especially true within the academic field of
management, where a growing chorus of less-heard voices offer challenges to the
entrenchment of Western-centric theoretical constructs (Alcadipani et al., 2012; Srinivas,
2023).
The inclusion of these pluriversal perspectives—distinct from North American or European
ones – is necessary as we seek to engage in collective action to address significant ongoing
and accelerating social and ecological crises. Yet such inclusion is often beset by constraints
and challenges. As with the academic field of management more broadly, notions of
responsibility have been predominantly shaped by North American and European
ideologies, within a hegemonic framework that has hindered the inclusion of more
localized understandings of managerial practices. This obscures the organizational
arrangements and distinctive social commitments that are specific to contexts in emerging
or developing countries (Austin et al., 2017). Business groups in India, for instance, engage
in unique paternalistic and philanthropic practices towards employees and local
communities that vary from one region to the next (Gao et al., 2017). The survival economy
in Kenya encourages engagement in mutualist practices to collectively protect
entrepreneurs from failure (Weiss et al., 2024). Companies in Colombia, in particular family
businesses, have a long history of fulfilling political roles and providing public goods such as
education, health and recreation (Acosta and Pérezts, 2019). Such engagement far
predates the popularity of political corporate social responsibility in academic lexicon.
Understanding the plurality of organizational arrangements around social and
environmental responsibility is thus necessary to examine the effectiveness,
appropriateness – and importantly, drawbacks – of businesses involving themselves in
tackling social and environmental issues. Beyond this, the global diffusion of sustainability
(Bothello and Salles-Djelic, 2018) has generated avenues for private actors – Western
multi-national corporations (MNCs) in particular – to actively shape the terms of
engagement with sustainability, for instance defining environmental practices across
supply chains (Reinecke and Donaghey, 2021). As a result, responsibility in the ‘Global
South’ is not only comprised of local and traditional organizational practices but also
involves hybridized forms that incorporate Western templates of responsibility around, for
instance, stakeholder management, social and environmental reporting or standards and
certifications (Jamali and Karam, 2018). At the intra-organizational level, this confluence
manifests as a plurality of discourses that spurs intense debates and struggles over
meanings of responsibility (Acosta et al., 2021).
The political struggle over social and environmental issues has long been a contentious
topic in the ‘Global South’, where large corporates and non-governmental organizations
are tasked with developing solutions that address structural problems like poverty and
unemployment by providing microfinance services (Alamgir and Banerjee, 2018), bottom of
the pyramid approaches (Sharma and Jaiswal, 2018), or developing sustainable global value
chains (Krishnan et al., 2023; Schuessler et al., 2023; Soundararajan, 2023). Some company
responses, like the infamous case of the United Fruit Company in Central America during
the 20th century, have been highly condemned for their exploitative neo-colonial practices
(Colby, 2019).
Contestations over land, water and natural resources become even more salient because
Western-dominant approaches privilege a particular vision of the world that marginalize
pluriversal perspectives offering a profoundly different vision of human-nature relations
(Banerjee, 2003; Ehrnström-Fuentes and Böhm, 2023). The pursuit of “greener”
development and technologies has resulted in numerous conflicts in the ‘Global South’,
where governments and companies promote resource extraction for prosperity and
modernization and as a necessary strategy for developing new technologies to address
climate change (Voskoboynik and Andreucci, 2022).
This domination of particular forms of thinking and knowledge may ultimately exacerbate
the ecological and social problems we face rather than ameliorate them (Banerjee and
Arjaliès, 2021). There is a need to broaden our scope to include alternative organizational
forms that can generate new avenues for tackling these issues, building on existing work on
indigenous entrepreneurship (Dana, 2015; Padilla-Meléndez et al., 2022), communitybased organizations (Peredo, 2019), cooperatives (Huybrechts and Haugh, 2018); social
enterprises (Doherty et al., 2014), public-private arrangements (Azizi et al., 2021; Nkomo
and Nkomo, 2023), the informal economy (Bothello et al., 2019), environmental justice
(Foster et al., 2023), and traditional approaches from the ‘Global South’ like Buen Vivir
(Husted, 2021; Peredo, 2019).
Importantly, in this call we seek to avoid romanticization and exoticization of the ‘Global
South’, despite the term being used as a way to overcome the limitations of prior NorthSouth dichotomies (Connell, 2007; Schneider, 2017). We invite instead accounts that
acknowledge the role of context without overemphasizing or over valorizing it (Hamann et
al., 2020). We also use ‘Global South’ in a manner that reflects its limitations: first, it is not
a geographical concept. Not all countries geographically located in the ‘Global South’ are
marginalized – some are culturally, ideologically, and economically aligned with the ‘Global
North’ (e.g. Australia); nor do all marginalized countries identify with the term ‘Global
South’. Second, collectivism and a shared history of colonialism cannot obscure and
homogenize the diversity of local realities among ‘Global South’ countries. We recognize
both the limitations and possibilities of the term but do so with a view towards “strategic
essentialism” (Spivak, 1999) that problematizes both epistemic location and epistemic
exclusion (Srinivas, 2023).
Overall, the urgency of this special issue is motivated by two concomitant developments.
First, our special issue is a response to recent calls to contextualize and decolonize
management studies – see for example the recent point-counterpoint discussion in Journal
of Management Studies (Banerjee, 2022; Bruton et al., 2022; Filatotchev et al., 2022;
Muzio, 2022) and also calls to decolonize management and organization studies journals
(Barros and Alcadipani, 2023). Second, we seek a plurality of perspectives to contend with
the multifaceted complexities, political, social and cultural diversity in such settings. We
need greater efforts not only to understand and make visible local solutions, give voice to
traditionally neglected actors including academics and practitioners located in the ‘Global
South’ and their (alternative) forms of organizing, but also to recognize why and how
‘Global North’ practices and policies may lead to negative outcomes in local settings in the
‘Global South’ (see for example Claus et al., 2021).
AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE
In this Special Issue, our aim is to develop a better understanding of what social and
environmental responsibility looks like within different contexts of the ‘Global South’. We
endeavor to construct conceptual frameworks that capture the unique characteristics
across a variety of non-Western settings, enabling us to inform, complement and challenge
some of the theoretical approaches that have predominantly originated from a ‘Global
North’ perspective (Wickert et al., 2024). Emphasizing the need to reconsider responsibility
from pluriversal perspectives, our goal is to bring in knowledge from those whose voices
have been neglected or marginalized.
We also aim to bring in a greater diversity of perspectives and voices in this Special Issue.
Voices from the ‘Global South’ – particularly those from marginalized communities –
remain underrepresented in management research (Alm and Guttormsen, 2023).
Understanding, for instance, Indigenous contexts and kinship systems and their
relationship to land and nature can offer valuable insights to enrich our understanding of
responsibility (Cutcher and Dale, 2023; Salmon et al., 2023) and even how we think about
taken for granted concepts like sustainable development (Kim et al., 2019). However, there
are real risks of misrepresenting marginalized groups arising from a lack of political
reflexivity among researchers that can perpetuate epistemic neo-colonialism (Chowdhury,
2023).
Thus, gaining a deeper understanding and theoretical insight into the viewpoints of the
‘Global South’ is crucial. This knowledge will contribute to a more nuanced appreciation of
multiple realities and facilitate the reconstruction of representations often imposed.
Despite an existing body of studies challenging the Western-centric perspective, our
aspiration in this special issue is to gain a richer understanding and mapping of how
research from the ‘Global South’ can inform social and environmental theories in
management.
Finally, the discursive construction of the ‘Global South’ is also an outcome of power
relations between actors and institutions that privilege particular ways of knowing and
being. Our aim is to challenge the perception of the ‘Global South’ solely as an empirical
setting. We see this special issue as a place to discuss our responsibility as researchers in
engaging with these settings (Bothello and Bonfim, 2023), as well as with marginalized
actors and organizations, when studying social and environmental issues.
We invite conceptual and empirical papers that explore a wide range of themes and
questions including, but not limited to, the following questions:
Questions about alternative forms of organizing for social and environmental
responsibility:
• What are alternative forms of organizations in the ‘Global South’ and how do they
address socio-ecological issues/crises?
• How does acknowledgement of pluriversal perspectives contribute to tackling social
and environmental challenges?
• What is the role of the institutional environment in facilitating responsibility in the
‘Global South’?
• How do actors, organizations, and governments in the ‘Global South’ reconcile the
tensions between economic growth and social and environmental issues?
• How can perspectives from the ‘Global South’ inform eco-centric perspectives and
relational ontologies (Ergene et al., 2021) ?
Questions about global vs. local approaches to responsibility:
• What role do business leaders in the ‘Global South’ play in perpetuating Western
based views and approaches?
• Do Western-based approaches marginalize communities in the ‘Global South’ (for
instance in the context of global value chains)? How?
• How do Western-based approaches transform existing human-nature and humanhuman relationships in the ‘Global South’?
• In what ways, if any, do actors and organizations in the ‘Global South’ preserve their
traditions and resist Western imposition (for instance, in the context of ‘green
extractivism’ (Henriques and Böhm, 2022; Voskoboynik and Andreucci, 2022))?
Questions about epistemology and the ethics of conducting research in the ‘Global
South’:
• How can we better equip ourselves as researchers and academics to avoid a
pejorative view of settings in developing countries?
• How can we create impact through research in the ‘Global South’?
• How can we ensure that Indigenous approaches to social and environmental
responsibility are not co-opted or appropriated by researchers?
• How can epistemologies rooted in the ‘Global South’ be embraced in management
scholarship? (Cutcher and Dale, 2023)
• What are ethical and responsible ways of collaboration for collecting, analyzing, and
interpreting data with scholars in the ‘Global South’? (e.g., von Richthofen and
Gümüsay, 2023)
Questions relating to marginalized communities in the ‘Global South’
• What role can Indigenous knowledge systems play in shaping sustainable and
culturally sensitive business models?
• How can businesses effectively engage with local communities while respecting
Indigenous rights?
• What can we learn from Indigenous approaches to social and environmental
responsibility in the ‘Global South’?
• How can researchers minimize risks of misrepresenting marginalized communities
and their knowledge in research?
• How do marginalized communities perceive and understand (organizational)
approaches to social and environmental responsibility?
SUBMISSION PROCESS AND DEADLINES
• Submission deadline: 31st August 2025.
• Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/14676486/JMS-ManuscriptPreparation-Guidelines-2024-1703285166.pdf)
• Manuscripts should be submitted using the JMS ScholarOne system
(https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jmstudies).
• Articles will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.
• We welcome informal inquiries relating to the Special Issue, proposed topics, and
potential fit with the Special Issue objectives. Please direct any questions on the
Special Issue to the Guest Editors.
SPECIAL ISSUE EVENTS
Information session: The Guest Editors will hold an online information session for the SI in
Fall 2024 (exact date, time, and format TBA).
Pre-submission paper development workshop: The special issue editors will conduct an
online pre-submission paper development workshop at the beginning of 2025 (exact date,
time and submission deadline TBA). Interested authors should submit a short paper (3000
words) to attend the workshop (see the requirements below). In breakout sessions, we will
discuss the papers and the fit with the special issue as well as receive feedback from other
authors. We also plan to invite some senior academics who will serve as mentors.
Attendance is not a precondition for submission to the Special Issue.
Submission requirements: Please submit a short paper no longer than 3000 words
(including references, appendices and other materials). Short papers should focus on the
main ideas of the proposed paper, i.e. they should explain the purpose of the paper,
theoretical framework, the research gap/puzzle/ problematization of the issue under
study, data and the methods of analysis (for empirical papers), preliminary findings and
contributions. Please highlight how this paper fits the SI by offering a richer understanding
and mapping of how a ‘Global South’ perspective can inform social and environmental
theories in management.
Post-submission paper development workshop: The special issue editors will also organize
a post-submission paper development workshop in Winter 2026 (exact date, time, and
format TBA) to provide support for authors invited to revise and resubmit their
manuscripts. Participation in the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in
the Special Issue and attendance is not a prerequisite for publication.
REFERENCES
Acosta, P., Acquier, A. and Gond, J. P. (2021). ‘Revisiting Politics in Political CSR: How
coercive and deliberative dynamics operate through institutional work in a Colombian
company’. Organization Studies, 42, 1111–1134.
Acosta, P. and Pérezts, M. (2019). ‘Unearthing Sedimentation Dynamics in Political CSR: The
Case of Colombia’. Journal of Business Ethics, 155, 425–444.
Alamgir, F. and Banerjee, S. B. (2018). ‘Contested compliance regimes in global production
networks : Insights from the Bangladesh garment industry’. Human Relations, 72, 272–
297.
Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E. and Nkomo, S. (2012). ‘Southern voices in
management and organization knowledge’. Organization, 19, 131–143.
Alm, K. and Guttormsen, D. S. A. (2023). ‘Enabling the Voices of Marginalized Groups of
People in Theoretical Business Ethics Research’. Journal of Business Ethics, 182, 303–
320.
Austin, G., Dávila, C. and Jones, G. (2017). ‘The Alternative Business History: Business in
Emerging Markets’. Business History Review, 91, 537-569.
Azizi, S., Börzel, T. and Hansen, H. K. (2021). ‘Governance and Business-Society Relations in
Areas of Limited Statehood: An Introduction’. Business and Society, 60, 1551–1572.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003). ‘Who Sustains Whose Development? Sustainable Development and
the Reinvention of Nature’. Organization Studies, 24, 143-180.
Banerjee, S. B. (2022). ‘Decolonizing Management Theory: A Critical Perspective’. Journal of
Management Studies, 59, 1074–1087.
Banerjee, S. B. and Arjaliès, D.-L. (2021). ‘Celebrating the End of Enlightenment:
Organization Theory in the Age of the Anthropocene and Gaia (and why neither is the
solution to our ecological crisis)’. Organization Theory, 2.
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211036714
Barros, A. and Alcadipani, R. (2023). ‘Decolonizing journals in management and
organizations? Epistemological colonial encounters and the double translation’.
Management Learning, 54, 576–586.
Boaventura de Sousa, S. and Meneses, M. (2020). Knowledges Born in the Struggle
Constructing the Epistemologies of the Global South. In Boaventura de Sousa, S. and
Meneses, M. (Eds.). New York: Routledge.
Bothello, J. and Bonfim, L. (2023). ‘Marginalized Communities and the Problem of Research
Extraction’. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13027
Bothello, J., Nason, R. S. and Schnyder, G. (2019). ‘Institutional Voids and Organization
Studies: Towards an epistemological rupture’. Organization Studies, 40, 1499–1512.
Bothello, J. and Salles-Djelic, M.-L. (2018). ‘Evolving Conceptualizations of Organizational
Environmentalism: A Path Generation Account’. Organization Studies, 39, 93–119.
Bowen, H. R. (2013). Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Iowa City, IA: University of
Iowa Press.
Bruton, G. D., Zahra, S. A., Van de Ven, A. H. and Hitt, M. A. (2022). ‘Indigenous Theory
Uses, Abuses and Future’. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 1057–1073.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: Evolution of a Definitional Construct’.
Business & Society, 38, 268–295.
Chowdhury, R. (2023). ‘Misrepresentation of Marginalized Groups: A Critique of Epistemic
Neocolonialism’. Journal of Business Ethics, 186, 553–570.
Claus, L., Greenwood, R. and Mgoo, J. (2021). ‘Institutional Translation Gone Wrong: The
Case of Villages for Africa in Rural Tanzania’. Academy of Management Journal, 64,
1497–1526.
Colby, J. M. (2019). The Business of Empire: United Fruit, Race and U.S. Expansion in Central
America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory. The global dynamics of knowledge in social science.
New York: Routledge.
Cutcher, L. and Dale, K. (2023). ‘‘We’re Not a White Fella Organization’: Hybridity and
friction in the contact zone between local kinship relations and audit culture in an
Indigenous organization’. Organization Studies, 44, 765–783.
Dana, P. (2015). ‘Indigenous entrepreneurship: an emerging field of research’. International
Journal of Business and Globalisation, 14, 158–169.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014). ‘Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A
Review and Research Agenda’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–
436.
Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. and Böhm, S. (2023). ‘The Political Ontology of Corporate Social
Responsibility: Obscuring the Pluriverse in Place’. Journal of Business Ethics, 185, 245–
261.
Ergene, S., Banerjee, S. B. and Hoffman, A. J. (2021). ‘(Un)Sustainability and Organization
Studies: Towards a Radical Engagement’. Organization Studies, 42, 1319–1335.
Filatotchev, I., Ireland, R. D. and Stahl, G. K. (2022). ‘Contextualizing Management
Research: An Open Systems Perspective’. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 1036–
1056.
Foster, A., Wissman, N., Bray, L. A., DeBoer, J., Ergene, S., Stewart, O. J., et al. (2023).
‘Rising to the Challenge: Embedding Environmental Justice in Management and
Organization Studies’. Organization & Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231201992
Gao, C., Zuzul, T., Jones, G. and Khanna, T. (2017). ‘Overcoming Institutional Voids: A
Reputation-Based View of Long-Run Survival’. Strategic Management Journal, 38,
2147–2167.
Hamann, R., Luiz, J., Ramaboa, K., Khan, F., Dhlamini, X. and Nilsson, W. (2020). ‘Neither
Colony Nor Enclave: Calling for dialogical contextualism in management and
organization studies’. Organization Theory, 1.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2631787719879705
Henriques, I. and Böhm, S. (2022). ‘The perils of ecologically unequal exchange: Contesting
rare-earth mining in Greenland’. Journal of Cleaner Production, 349.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131378
Hielscher, S. and Husted, B. W. (2020). ‘Proto-CSR Before the Industrial Revolution:
Institutional Experimentation by Medieval Miners’ Guilds’. Journal of Business Ethics,
166, 253–269.
Hoffman, R. C. (2007). ‘Corporate social responsibility in the 1920s: an institutional
perspective’. Journal of Management History, 13, 55–73.
Husted, B. W. (2015). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility Practice from 1800-1914: Past
Initiatives and Current Debates’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 25, 125–141.
Husted, B. W. (2021). ‘Buen Vivir: A Path to Reimagining Corporate Social Responsibility in
Mexico after COVID-19′. Sustainability, 13, 6451.
Huybrechts, B. and Haugh, H. (2018). ‘The Roles of Networks in Institutionalizing New
Hybrid Organizational Forms: Insights from the European Renewable Energy
Cooperative Network’. Organization Studies, 39, 1085–1108.
Jamali, D. and Karam, C. (2018). ‘Corporate Social Responsibility in Developing Countries as
an Emerging Field of Study’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20, 32–61.
Kim, A., Bansal, P. and Haugh, H. (2019). ‘No Time Like the Present: How a Present Time
Perspective Can Foster Sustainable Development’. Academy of Management Journal,
62, 607–634.
Krishnan, A., De Marchi, V. and Ponte, S. (2023). ‘Environmental Upgrading and
Downgrading in Global Value Chains: A Framework for Analysis’. Economic Geography,
99, 25–50.
Marquis, C. and Raynard, M. (2015). ‘Institutional Strategies in Emerging Markets’. The
Academy of Management Annals, 9, 291–335.
Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2008). ‘‘Implicit’ and ‘explicit’ CSR: A conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility’. Academy of
Management Review, 33, 404–424.
Muzio, D. (2022). ‘Re-Conceptualizing Management Theory: How do we Move Away from
Western-Centred Knowledge?’. Journal of Management Studies, 59, 1032–1035.
Nkomo, M. and Nkomo, L. (2023). ‘Politics from the Pits: Artisanal Gold Mining, Politics and
the Limits of Hegemonic State Domination in Zimbabwe’. Journal of Southern African
Studies, 49, 137–153.
Padilla-Meléndez, A., Ciruela-Lorenzo, A. M., Del-Aguila-Obra, A. R. and Plaza-Angulo, J. J.
(2022). ‘Understanding the entrepreneurial resilience of indigenous women
entrepreneurs as a dynamic process. The case of Quechuas in Bolivia’.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 34, 852–867.
Palazzo, G. and Scherer, A. G. (2008). ‘Corporate social responsibility, democracy and the
politicization of the corporation’. Academy of Management Review, 33, 773–775.
Peredo, A. M. (2019). ‘El Buen Vivir. Notions of wellbeing among Indigenous peoples of
South America’. In Fleming, C. and Manning, M. (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Indigenous Wellbeing. New York: Routledge.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E. and Sachs, S. (2002). ‘Managing the Extended Enterprise: The New
Stakeholder approach’. California Management Review, 45, 6–28.
Reinecke, J. and Donaghey, J. (2021). ‘Political CSR at the Coalface – The Roles and
Contradictions of Multinational Corporations in Developing Workplace Dialogue’.
Journal of Management Studies, 58, 457–486.
von Richthofen, G. and Gümüsay, A. (2023). ‘Impact Without Imposition: What Role for
Northern Academics in the Global South?’. Stanford Social Innovation Review.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48558/B761-2W21
Salmon, E., Chavez R., J. F. and Murphy, M. (2023). ‘New Perspectives and Critical Insights
from Indigenous Peoples’ Research: A Systematic Review of Indigenous Management
and Organization Literature’. Academy of Management Annals, 17, 439–491.
Schneider, N. (2017). ‘Between Promise and Skepticism: The Global South and Our Role as
Engaged Intellectuals’. The Global South, 11, 18.
Schuessler, E. S., Lohmeyer, N. and Ashwin, S. (2023). ‘“We Can’t Compete on Human
Rights”: Creating Market-Protected Spaces to Institutionalize the Emerging Logic
of Responsible Management’. Academy of Management Journal, 66, 1071–1101.
Sharma, G. and Jaiswal, A. K. (2018). ‘Unsustainability of Sustainability: Cognitive Frames
and Tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid Projects’. Journal of Business Ethics, 148, 291–
307.
Soundararajan, V. (2023). ‘The dark side of the cascading compliance model in global value
chains’. Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 50, 209–218.
Spivak, G. C. (1999). A Critique of Postcolonial Reason. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Srinivas, N. (2023). ‘Locating the Global South in Organization’. Organization, 30, 1202–
1210.
Voskoboynik, D. M. and Andreucci, D. (2022). ‘Greening extractivism: Environmental
discourses and resource governance in the ‘Lithium Triangle’’. Environment and
Planning E: Nature and Space, 5, 787–809.
Weiss, T., Lounsbury, M. and Bruton, G. (2024). ‘Survivalist Organizing in Urban Poverty
Contexts’. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17644
Wickert, C., Potočnik, K., Prashantham, S., Shi, W. and Snihur, Y. (2024). ‘Embracing non Western Contexts in Management Scholarship’. Journal of Management Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13048