Conscious capitalism and the organizational propensity to fight corruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how much the basic tenets of conscious capitalism could favor organizational change and anticorruption strategies. Design/methodology/approach The paper questions the vagueness of the tenets and principles of conscious capitalism. It unveils the idealized worldview of conscious capitalism, as it is based on a “pseudo-humanistic and pseudo-holistic” philosophy. The paper analyzes various kinds of rationale for justifying anticorruption measures and explains how the conscious capitalism movement should assume the challenge to develop one or the other rationale. Findings The conscious capitalism movement does not have basic rationale for any self-justified discourse about anticorruption measures. The principles of conscious capitalism organizations can be coherent with a rationale of individual and organizational compliance. They could be suitable with a rationale of legal, industry and international compliance. We could expect that the principles of conscious capitalism allow radical changes in the organizational culture. However, the main principles of conscious capitalism are not explicitly related to any rationale for a corporate self-justified discourse about anticorruption measures. Research limitations/implications The three kinds of rationale for corporate self-justified discourse about anticorruption measures are not exhaustive. There can be other kinds of corporate rationale. Moreover, the conscious capitalism movement appeared in 2000s and is still evolving. So, we should never take for granted that the present ideals and principles of conscious capitalism will never be improved and deepened. Originality/value The paper explains how the conscious capitalism movement remains unable to present its rationale for justifying anticorruption measures. In doing so, it provides three kinds of rationale that conscious capitalism organizations could use to develop their corporate self-justified discourse about anticorruption policies, measures and programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".