INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL TOPIC FORUM ON NEW THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON MARKET-BASED ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

基于市场的经济体系新理论视角专题论坛介绍

Markets are not, in my opinion, a full solution to any problem. 在我看来，市场并非解决任何问题的万全之策。

—Ken Arrow (Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 1995) —肯·阿罗（明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行，1995年）

Our call for papers for the Special Topic Forum on New Theoretical Perspectives on Market-Based Economic Systems (Barney & Rangan, 2019) was published over two years ago. That call pointed to a mounting list of concerns testing the limits of and trust in conventional capitalism: climate change and depleted ecosystems, declining labor share in income and rising concentration of wealth and market power, worrying lags between advances in technology and worker skills, immoderate consumption and declining health spans, precariously globalized production and supply chains, data privacy, and the rise of nationalism. Our essay invited new theoretical perspectives to help us explore how firms operating in market economies might evolve their aspirations and architectures in a better direction— one where they would better integrate economic performance and societal progress. As our late colleague the esteemed economist Ken Arrow long held, markets may be efficient, but they are surely not sufficient. Management and governance matter, perhaps more than ever. 我们为“基于市场的经济体系新理论视角专题论坛”（Barney & Rangan, 2019）征集论文的呼吁书已发布两年多。该呼吁书指出，一系列日益凸显的问题正在挑战传统资本主义的极限与信任：气候变化与生态系统退化、收入中劳动份额下降及财富与市场权力集中度上升、技术进步与工人技能提升之间令人担忧的滞后、过度消费与健康寿命缩短、全球化程度过高且脆弱的生产与供应链、数据隐私问题，以及民族主义的兴起。我们的文章邀请新的理论视角，帮助我们探索市场经济中的企业如何更好地调整其发展愿景与架构——一个能更好地将经济绩效与社会进步相结合的方向。正如我们已故的杰出同事、经济学家肯·阿罗（Ken Arrow）长期秉持的观点，市场或许高效，但肯定并不充分。管理与治理至关重要，其重要性或许比以往任何时候都更为突出。

To be clear, our view was that the existing paradigm of the decentralized market system is incomplete but not fundamentally invalid. The incumbent mainstream paradigm has helped reduce absolute poverty in the world and unleashed unprecedented (if unequal) prosperity. The incentive merits of property rights and the information content of market prices, albeit imperfect and incomplete, are powerful and privately and socially useful. The mainstream is therefore not to be discarded but to be repaired and further developed. 需要明确的是，我们认为现有的分散式市场体系范式虽不完整，但并非从根本上无效。现有的主流范式帮助减少了全球绝对贫困，并释放了前所未有的（尽管存在不平等）繁荣。产权的激励价值以及市场价格的信息含量，尽管存在不完善和不完整之处，但其作用强大且具有私人和社会效用。因此，主流范式不应被摒弃，而应加以修正和进一步发展。

That said, to the extent there were any doubts about Arrow’s observation, they were allayed by events unfolding in the two years since we published our call. Prime among these is, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic. While, in hindsight, it could be argued that such a worldwide pandemic was inevitable, the chain of devastating consequences it unleashed could hardly have been anticipated. The pandemic—and other ominous developments like the planet-wide wildfires and flash floods, and polarization and nationalism—has made starker the concerns we described in the original essay. The plight of frontline workers and working parents (mothers in particular) during the pandemic, the unevenness in access to ventilators and vaccines, not to mention laptops and broadband, and, at the same time, the unprecedented spike in the wealth of business owners, all bring renewed urgency to reflections on fairness, well-being, the relationship between work and family, the role of employment in the economy, gender equity, the mixed blessing of global interconnectedness, and the relative roles of business and government. 话虽如此，就Arrow的观察存在的任何疑虑而言，在我们发表呼吁后的两年里发生的事件都消除了这些疑虑。其中最重要的当然是新冠疫情。事后看来，或许可以说这样一场全球大流行病是不可避免的，但它引发的一系列毁灭性后果却几乎无法预料。这场疫情以及其他不祥的发展，如全球范围内的野火和暴洪、两极分化和民族主义，都让我们在原文中描述的担忧更加凸显。疫情期间一线工作者和职场父母（尤其是母亲）的困境、呼吸机和疫苗（更不用说笔记本电脑和宽带）获取的不均衡，以及与此同时企业主财富的前所未有的激增，都让人们对公平、福祉、工作与家庭的关系、就业在经济中的作用、性别平等、全球互联的利弊以及企业和政府的相对作用的反思重新变得紧迫。

The pandemic highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of both business and government in the economy. Governments used their authority to immobilize entire economic sectors to slow the spread of the virus while also writing life- and job-saving checks and speedily providing special funds and liabilityprotecting legislation for pharma companies. The latter, in the face of huge human and financial stakes, raced to develop vaccines and treatments. Firms like Zoom and Microsoft showed that tech could be a force for good. And, not the least, families and communities surfaced from the background to the foreground in many people’s lives. 疫情凸显了商业和政府在经济中的优势与劣势。政府动用权力关停整个经济部门以减缓病毒传播，同时开具挽救生命和工作的支票，并迅速为制药公司提供专项基金和责任保护立法。后者在巨大的人力和财务风险面前，竞相研发疫苗和治疗方法。Zoom和微软等公司表明，科技可以成为向善的力量。此外，家庭和社区在许多人的生活中从幕后走到了台前。

The pandemic also exacerbated international tensions. Borders closed (and some remain so). Trade restrictions put in place before the pandemic, especially between the United States and China, continued during the pandemic. Now the invasion of Ukraine compounds implications for the operation of the international economy. Beyond public health, it is obliging countries worldwide to assess energy, food, and national security. It is difficult to overstate the implications of these developments for peace, prosperity, and global warming. We are surely forced to suspend, if not shed, the belief (or hope) that rising economic prosperity and interconnectedness inevitably sets in motion processes that unleash liberalism and democracy. Albert O. Hirschman (1977) famously argued that the pursuit of wealth tames man’s tendency to glory. Capitalism, in his view, was a grandly civilizing project. Emerging empirical patterns, alas, must cast doubts on that promising hypothesis about the causes and especially consequences of capitalism. 大流行还加剧了国际紧张局势。边境关闭（有些至今仍未开放）。大流行前实施的贸易限制，特别是美国和中国之间的贸易限制，在大流行期间持续存在。如今，对乌克兰的入侵进一步加剧了国际经济运作的影响。除了公共卫生问题，这还迫使世界各国评估能源、粮食和国家安全。这些事态发展对和平、繁荣和全球变暖的影响怎么强调都不为过。我们无疑被迫要放弃（如果不是彻底摒弃的话）那种认为经济繁荣和相互联系的提升必然会推动自由和民主进程的信念（或希望）。阿尔伯特·O·赫希曼（Albert O. Hirschman）在1977年曾著名地指出，对财富的追求会驯服人类追求荣耀的倾向。在他看来，资本主义是一项宏伟的文明化工程。然而，新兴的实证模式必须对这一关于资本主义成因、尤其是后果的令人向往的假设产生怀疑。

The pandemic and the emerging world “disorder” bring to the fore three observations. First, when push comes to shove, intrinsic ends such as security, health, and well-being matter more to many people than instrumental ends such as production and GDP. Security, health, and well-being are among the vital “outcomes” on which an impartial spectator might rightly assess a society (Rawls, 1971). Production and GDP are among “outputs” that are no doubt important too. In principle, these outputs could be oriented to advance vital intrinsic outcomes. Yet, something in the current paradigm and practice of our modern economic system tempts us to goal displacement—to focus overly on instrumental ends such as wealth and GDP and to neglect (if unintentionally) intrinsic ends such as fairness, well-being, nature, and the future. 疫情和新兴的世界“失序”凸显了三个观察结果。首先，当面临压力时，对许多人来说，安全、健康和福祉等内在目标比生产和国内生产总值（GDP）等工具性目标更为重要。安全、健康和福祉是公正的旁观者可能合理评估一个社会的关键“成果”（罗尔斯，1971）。生产和GDP无疑也是重要的“产出”。原则上，这些产出可以用来促进重要的内在成果。然而，我们现代经济体系的当前范式和实践中，某种东西诱使我们出现目标错位——过度关注财富和GDP等工具性目标，而忽视（如果是无意的）公平、福祉、自然和未来等内在目标。

Second, for modern humanity, interdependence is a critical and chronic dilemma. We see that we are not only economically but also ecologically, ethically, and existentially interdependent. Indeed, these dimensions are themselves often intertwined—for example, ecological dilemmas (such as those posed by the pandemic) provoke economic and ethical dilemmas. Of course, we have long been forming and reforming institutions—formal and informal—to address this interdependence. These include bilateral and multilateral trade agreements; global standard setting organizations; multilateral agreements about global warming, poverty, human trafficking; and so forth. 其次，对现代人类而言，相互依存是一个关键且长期存在的困境。我们看到，人类不仅在经济上相互依存，在生态、伦理和生存层面也是如此。事实上，这些维度本身往往相互交织——例如，生态困境（如疫情带来的困境）会引发经济和伦理困境。当然，我们长期以来一直在建立和改革正式与非正式的制度，以应对这种相互依存。这些制度包括双边和多边贸易协定；全球标准制定组织；关于全球变暖、贫困、人口贩卖的多边协定等等。

Yet, as the autarkic reflex of closing frontiers confirms, our existing institutions are often inadequate relative to the strength and scope of our true interdependence. Severing links can at best be a temporary measure. If we are to thrive together as societies and as a humanity, then we must work to evolve and upgrade our institutions and the paradigms—which outline in given domains proper goals, roles, and routines—upon which these institutions are based. In particular, we need to look beyond the “contractarian” paradigm pioneered by Hobbes to consider how a focus on performance, leadership, and innovation can be complemented with a focus on progress, stewardship, and integration (Rangan, 2018). 然而，正如封闭边界这一自给自足的反应所证实的那样，我们现有的机构往往不足以应对我们真实相互依存关系的强度和范围。切断联系最多只能是一种临时措施。如果我们要作为社会和人类共同繁荣，就必须努力发展和升级我们的机构，以及这些机构所依据的范式——范式在特定领域中规定了适当的目标、角色和常规做法。特别是，我们需要超越霍布斯开创的“契约主义”范式，思考如何将对绩效、领导力和创新的关注与对进步、管理和整合的关注相结合（Rangan, 2018）。

Last, but not least, we see that, even in a crisis as dramatic as the pandemic, effective response lies less in public action by some omnipotent central messiah (although there will be pretensions to this), and rather more in collective, decentralized, private action. The latter of course requires effective coordination, which, for short periods in emergencies, may emanate from a central actor (say, via law and regulation). In normal times, such coordination can emerge via markets. But, as Arrow reminds us, not solely markets. Non-market institutions that articulate societal goals, norms, and aspirations beyond maximizing wealth are important sources of coordination as well. 最后但同样重要的是，我们看到，即便在像疫情这样严峻的危机中，有效的应对措施并不在于某个无所不能的“救世主”式的公共行动（尽管会有人宣称自己是这样的角色），而更多在于集体性、分散化的私人行动。当然，后者需要有效的协调，在紧急情况下的短时间内，这种协调可能来自某个核心行动者（比如说，通过法律和法规）。在正常时期，这种协调可以通过市场来实现。但正如阿罗提醒我们的，协调方式并非只有市场。那些能够表达超越财富最大化的社会目标、规范和愿望的非市场机构，也是重要的协调来源。

Of course, these non-market institutions both affect, and are affected by, people (that is, us). Thus, how we are educated and trained has an impact on these institutions. In particular, because coordinated private action must be oriented at least in part to desirable collective outcomes, education and training must deepen both individual competence and individual character. In this context, business schools play an obviously important, although not exclusive, role. We must help ensure that economic actors (i.e., enterprises and their executives, but also consumers, investors, and employees) develop the desire and capacity to address intrinsic ends—security, health, and well-being—as well as extrinsic ends—economic wealth creation and GDP growth. This will require a level of integrative thinking and action that is not yet widely appreciated in today’s business academy. 当然，这些非市场机构既会影响我们（即人们），也会受到我们的影响。因此，我们所接受的教育和培训方式会对这些机构产生影响。特别是，由于协调一致的私人行动至少部分必须以理想的集体成果为导向，教育和培训必须深化个人能力和个人品格。在这种情况下，商学院发挥着明显重要但并非唯一的作用。我们必须确保经济行为体（即企业及其高管，还包括消费者、投资者和员工）培养出实现内在目标（安全、健康和福祉）以及外在目标（经济财富创造和国内生产总值增长）的愿望和能力。这将需要一种综合思维和行动的水平，而这一点在当今的商学院中尚未得到广泛认可。

Thus, we are living in “interesting” times that call on us to develop new and better theories about market-based economies. While the specific tensions that have emerged in the last couple of years would have been difficult to anticipate in detail, their general form and substance were discussed in the 2019 essay and elsewhere (Rangan, 2015, 2018). 因此，我们正生活在“有趣”的时代，这要求我们发展出关于市场经济的新的、更好的理论。虽然过去几年出现的具体紧张局势难以详细预测，但它们的一般形式和实质内容在2019年的文章以及其他地方（Rangan, 2015, 2018）中已有讨论。

The papers in this Special Topic Forum build on these and other conversations in ways that may advance our understanding of the management and governance of firms operating in market-based economies around the world. Altogether, scholars submitted nearly 60 papers to this Special Topic Forum. Content ranged broadly and ambitiously. The manuscripts that we ultimately accepted can be organized in three broad categories: papers that focus on the implications of better incorporating stakeholders into market logics; those that focus on alternative and better organizational forms; and those that address market responses to intendedly socially responsible actions by firms. 本专题论坛的论文在这些及其他讨论的基础上展开，可能有助于我们更好地理解全球市场经济中企业的管理与治理。学者们总共向本专题论坛提交了近60篇论文，内容广泛且雄心勃勃。我们最终接受的稿件可分为三大类：一类侧重于将利益相关者更好地纳入市场逻辑的影响；一类侧重于替代且更优的组织形式；还有一类探讨企业有意开展社会责任行动时市场的反应。

STAKEHOLDERS

利益相关者

Stakeholders face a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, they have strong incentives to cooperate with other stakeholders, including managers in firms, to create economic and social value together. On the other hand, they have strong incentives to maximize their own performance, perhaps to the detriment of these collective efforts. Flore Bridoux and J. W. Stoelhorst (“Stakeholder Governance: Solving the Collective Action Problems in Joint Value Creation”) explore this dilemma. They draw on Elinor Ostrom’s work and frame this as a collective action problem among a firm’s stakeholders. They argue that, rather than the hub and spoke model of governance that dominates most stakeholder work, two alternative forms of stakeholder governance—lead role governance and shared governance—may actually be more effective in resolving this dilemma for stakeholders (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022). 利益相关者面临一个根本的困境。一方面，他们有强烈的动机与其他利益相关者（包括企业管理者）合作，共同创造经济和社会价值。另一方面，他们也有强烈的动机来最大化自身的业绩，这可能会损害这些集体努力。弗洛·布里杜（Flore Bridoux）和J.W.斯托尔霍斯特（J. W. Stoelhorst）在《利益相关者治理：解决联合价值创造中的集体行动问题》中探讨了这一困境。他们借鉴了埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆（Elinor Ostrom）的研究成果，并将其界定为企业利益相关者之间的集体行动问题。他们认为，与主导大多数利益相关者研究的“中心辐射式”治理模式不同，两种替代形式的利益相关者治理——主导角色治理和共享治理——实际上可能更有效地帮助利益相关者解决这一困境（Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2022）。

Much work on stakeholders focuses on the relationship between a firm and its stakeholders. Brian Ganson, Tony Lizhang He, and Witold J. Henisz (2022) (“Business and Peace: The Impact of Firm-Stakeholder Relational Strategies on Conflict Risk”) argue that a firm’s own actions can also have an impact on relations among stakeholders. Indeed, to the extent that firm actions strengthen, rather than weaken, these inter-stakeholder ties, they can decrease the risk of conflict in a society. In this sense, stakeholder management and its fruits relate not only to the bilateral relations between a firm and its stakeholders, but also to the multilateral relations among a firm’s stakeholders. 关于利益相关者的大量研究聚焦于企业与其利益相关者之间的关系。Brian Ganson、Tony Lizhang He 和 Witold J. Henisz（2022）在《商业与和平：企业-利益相关者关系策略对冲突风险的影响》中指出，企业自身的行为也会对利益相关者之间的关系产生影响。事实上，只要企业的行动能够加强而非削弱这些利益相关者之间的联系，就能降低社会中的冲突风险。从这个意义上说，利益相关者管理及其成果不仅涉及企业与其利益相关者之间的双边关系，还涉及企业利益相关者之间的多边关系。

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS

组织形式

There is growing agreement that business enterprise in the 21st century can and ought to do more than solely maximize the wealth of owners or shareholders. Firms must address the interests of their broader stakeholders. But how might firms manage the conflicts and tradeoffs that are often inherent in the preferences and priorities of heterogeneous stakeholders? Julie Battilana, Tomasz Obloj, Anne-Claire Pache, and Metin Sengul (2022) (“Beyond Shareholder Value Maximization: Accounting for Financial/Social Tradeoffs in Dual-Purpose Companies”) explore this issue and theorize about how the institutional and governance context within which a firm operates can make it more or less difficult to manage these tensions and tradeoffs. Such work underlines the role of governance in regulating agency concerns when managers strive to pursue performance and progress. 人们越来越一致认为，21世纪的企业不仅能够而且应该超越单纯追求所有者或股东财富最大化的目标。企业必须兼顾更广泛利益相关者的利益。但企业应如何管理异质利益相关者的偏好和优先级中常常固有的冲突与权衡呢？朱莉·巴蒂拉纳（Julie Battilana）、托马什·奥布罗伊（Tomasz Obloj）、安妮-克莱尔·帕谢（Anne-Claire Pache）和梅廷·森古（Metin Sengul）（2022）在《超越股东价值最大化：双目标企业中的财务/社会权衡考量》一文中探讨了这一问题，并从理论上分析了企业所处的制度和治理环境如何影响管理这些紧张关系和权衡的难易程度。此类研究强调了在管理者努力追求业绩和进步时，治理在调节代理问题方面的作用。

Over the last few years, we have seen a proliferation of organizational forms in market economies: 在过去几年中，我们看到市场经济中的组织形式大量涌现：

cooperatives, privately held firms, family-owned firms, and, lately, benefit corporations that make explicit commitments to stakeholders besides shareholders. Marco Berti and Christos Pitelis (“Open Team Production, the New Cooperative Firm, and Hybrid Advantage”) explore an important question along which many of these organizational forms vary: Do they favor closed team production or open team production? The former types of firms bring their most important resources and assets within a firm’s boundary; the latter access these important resources and assets from outside the firm’s boundary. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each of these organizational forms, and argues that firms that combine elements of both closed and open systems are likely to have advantages over firms that specialize in only one type of organization (Berti & Pitelis, 2022). 合作社、私营企业、家族企业，以及近来日益增多的向股东之外的利益相关者明确作出承诺的 Benefit Corporation（ Benefit Corporation ）。Marco Berti 和 Christos Pitelis 在《开放团队生产、新型合作社企业与混合优势》一文中探讨了一个许多这类组织形式存在差异的重要问题：它们更倾向于封闭型团队生产还是开放型团队生产？前一种类型的企业将其最重要的资源和资产纳入企业边界内；后一种类型则从企业边界之外获取这些重要资源和资产。该论文讨论了这两种组织形式各自的优势与劣势，并认为结合了封闭型和开放型系统要素的企业，可能比仅专注于单一类型组织的企业更具优势（Berti & Pitelis, 2022）。

CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY

企业责任

The practice of green washing, social washing, rainbow washing—the symbolic and often inauthentic use of corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategies—has cast doubts on the legitimacy of CSR efforts altogether. Leandro Nardi (“The Corporate Social Responsibility Price Premium as an Enabler of Substantive CSR”) provides a logic that may, in some circumstances, make CSR efforts redeemable. Using a formal model, he shows that, when consumers can distinguish between substantive and symbolic CSR, they may be willing to pay more for the products sold by firms engaging in substantive CSR than for the products sold by firms engaging in only symbolic CSR. This can, in turn, provide firms a financial incentive to engage in substantive rather than symbolic CSR—an incentive that, in the long run, should lead to more substantive and less symbolic CSR in the economy. More broadly, this paper shines a light on the demand side willingness-to-pay and willingness-to buy effects (Nardi, 2022). Such shifts on the demand side will likely be an essential complement to shifts on the supply side reflected in the growing adoption of triple bottom line and environmental, social, and governance thinking by firms. “漂绿”、“社绿”、彩虹漂绿——即企业社会责任（CSR）策略的象征性使用且往往是不真实的——这种做法让企业社会责任的努力整体上的合法性受到了质疑。莱安德罗·纳尔迪（Leandro Nardi，《企业社会责任溢价：实质性企业社会责任的推动因素》）提出一种逻辑，在某些情况下，这可以使企业社会责任的努力具有救赎意义。通过一个正式模型，他表明，当消费者能够区分实质性和象征性的企业社会责任时，他们可能更愿意为从事实质性企业社会责任的公司所售产品支付更高的价格，而不是仅从事象征性企业社会责任的公司的产品。这反过来可以为企业提供从事实质性而非象征性企业社会责任的经济激励——从长远来看，这种激励应该会使经济中实质性企业社会责任的实践增加，而象征性企业社会责任的做法减少。更广泛地说，本文揭示了需求方的支付意愿和购买意愿影响（Nardi，2022）。需求方的这种转变可能会成为供给方转变的重要补充，而供给方的转变体现在企业越来越多地采用三重底线以及环境、社会和治理（ESG）理念。

We hope you find these papers as rewarding as we did in developing them with their authors. We would like to thank our three other co-editors— Elizabeth Anderson (John Dewey Distinguished University Professor of Philosophy and Woman’s Studies at the University of Michigan), Rebecca Henderson (John and Natty McArthur University Professor, Harvard Business School), and John Meyer (Professor of Sociology, Stanford University)—as well as the almost 200 reviewers who were involved in choosing and developing the papers that were finally selected for this topic forum. 我们希望您在阅读这些论文时能和我们在与作者共同开发它们的过程中一样有所收获。我们要感谢另外三位联合编辑——密歇根大学哲学与女性研究约翰·杜威杰出大学教授伊丽莎白·安德森（Elizabeth Anderson）、哈佛商学院约翰和纳蒂·麦克阿瑟大学教授丽贝卡·亨德森（Rebecca Henderson）以及斯坦福大学社会学教授约翰·迈耶（John Meyer）——还要感谢近200位审稿人，他们参与了筛选和完善最终入选本期专题论坛的论文。

To reflect the broad range of papers that were submitted to this forum, paper reviewers were drawn from many different fields including management, political science, sociology, psychology, economics, and philosophy. Many of these reviewers were new to AMR and had to learn the AMR way of reviewing in addition to actually reviewing their assigned papers. We are particularly grateful for the willingness of these interdisciplinary reviewers to put aside—if for only a time—their disciplinary blinders to consider broader issues regarding markets and societal progress. 为了反映提交给本论坛的各类论文，论文评审人员来自管理、政治学、社会学、心理学、经济学和哲学等多个不同领域。其中许多评审人员是AMR的新手，除了实际评审分配给他们的论文外，还必须学习AMR的评审方法。我们特别感谢这些跨学科评审人员愿意暂时（哪怕只是暂时）放下学科偏见，考虑有关市场和社会进步的更广泛问题。

REFERENCES

参考文献

Barney, J. B., & Rangan, S. 2019. Why do we need a special issue on new theoretical perspectives on market-based economic systems? Academy of Management Review, 44: 15.
巴尼（Barney, J. B.）和兰加（Rangan, S.），2019年。我们为何需要针对基于市场的经济体系新理论视角的特刊？《管理学会评论》，44卷：15页。

Battilana, J., Obloj, T., Pache, A.-C., & Sengul, M. 2022. Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social tradeoffs in dual-purpose companies. Academy of Management Review, 47: 237258.
巴蒂拉纳（Battilana, J.）、奥布洛夫（Obloj, T.）、帕谢（Pache, A.-C.）和森古尔（Sengul, M.）。2022年。超越股东价值最大化：兼顾双重目标公司的财务/社会权衡。《管理学会评论》，47：237258。

Berti, M., & Pitelis, C. 2022. Open team production, the new cooperative firm, and hybrid advantage. Academy of Management Review, 47: 309330.
Berti, M.，& Pitelis, C. 2022. 开放式团队生产、新型合作企业与混合优势。《管理学会评论》，47: 309330。

Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. 2022. Stakeholder governance: Solving the collective action problems in joint value creation. Academy of Management Review, 47: 214236.
布里杜（Bridoux, F.）和斯泰尔霍斯特（Stoelhorst, J. W.），2022年。利益相关者治理：解决联合价值创造中的集体行动问题。《管理学会评论》，47：214236。

Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. 1995, December 1. Interview with Kenneth Arrow. Retrieved from https:// www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1995/interviewwith-kenneth-arrow
明尼阿波利斯联邦储备银行。1995年12月1日。对肯尼思·阿罗的采访。Retrieved from https:// www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1995/interviewwith-kenneth-arrow

Ganson, B., He, T. L., & Henisz, W. J. 2022. Business and peace: The impact of firm—stakeholder relational strategies on conflict risk. Academy of Management Review, 47: 259281.
Ganson, B., He, T. L., & Henisz, W. J. 2022. 商业与和平：企业—利益相关者关系策略对冲突风险的影响。《管理学会评论》，47：259281。

Hirschman, A. O. 1977 . The passions and the interests: Political arguments for capitalism before its triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
赫希曼，A. O. 1977年。《激情与利益：资本主义胜利前的政治论证》。新泽西州普林斯顿：普林斯顿大学出版社。

Nardi, L. 2022. The corporate social responsibility price premium as an enabler of substantive CSR. Academy of Management Review, 47: 282308.
Nardi, L. 2022. 企业社会责任价格溢价作为实质性企业社会责任的推动因素。《管理学会评论》，47: 282308。

Rangan, S. (Ed.). 2015. Performance and progress: Essays on capitalism, business, and society. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Rangan, S.（编）. 2015. 表现与进展：关于资本主义、商业和社会的论文集. 英国牛津：牛津大学出版社.

Rangan, S. (Ed.). 2018. Capitalism beyond mutuality? Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
Rangan, S.（编）. 2018. 超越互惠的资本主义？整合哲学与社会科学的视角. 英国牛津：牛津大学出版社.

Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. New York, NY: Belknap. 罗尔斯，J. 1971. 正义论。纽约，纽约州：贝尔纳普出版社。

Jay B. Barney University of Utah Jay B. Barney 犹他大学

Copyright of Academy of Management Review is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. 《管理学会评论》的版权归管理学会所有，未经版权所有者明确许可，其内容不得复制、通过电子邮件发送至多个网站或发布到电子讨论组列表。不过，用户可以为个人使用打印、下载或通过电子邮件发送文章。