ICA 2018 Preconference Calls for Abstracts
Preconference: May 24, 2018
Diverse Voices: Authentic Communication, Trust, Dialogue, and Society
Department of Marketing Communication and Public Relations
Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
CALL FOR PAPERS
(abstract submission deadline: 1 December, 2017)
Public Relations Division (Sponsor),
Global Communication and Social Change (co-sponsor),
Organizational Communication Division (co-sponsor)
This preconference is organized by the Public Relations Society of China (PRSC), the European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA), and the Department of Marketing Communication and Public Relations at Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Chun-Ju Flora Hung-Baesecke, PRSC, Massey University, New Zealand
Xianhong Chen, President of PRSC; Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
Øyvind Ihlen, EUPRERA, University of Oslo, Norway
Ralph Tench, EUPRERA, Leeds Beckett University, UK
Yi-Ru Regina Chen, PRSC, Hong Kong Baptist University
Denisa Hejlová, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Venue: Department of Marketing Communication and Public Relations, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
Theme: Diverse Voices: Authentic Communication, Trust, Dialogue, and Society
This is an era of distrust and diverse voices. Globalization, government and corporate corruption, and the rise of populism have resulted in a great decline of trust among the public (Edelman, 2017). Modern communication technology and social media give every entity a voice in the contemporary public communication arena. For organizations, the question is not “if” but “how” and “when” to best use various communication platforms to engage in dialogue with publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002). We saw the dialogic approach emerge in a new theoretical shift in public relations research. However, much research to date has not yet clearly defined dialogue as a concept for examination, to analyze dialogue in multiple online or offline platforms, and to further develop the approach beyond the present state. The changing societal context in our time affects the practice of dialogue. One is led to ponder the role of dialogue in contemporary, digital society and its intended effects (or limits), principles, and pre-conditions (e.g., public trust and organization’s honesty and authenticity).
This proposed preconference invites discussions on topics including, but are not limited
to: What is (constructive) dialogue in the organization-public context? What are the
processes, principles, and conditions of dialogue in the East and the West? What are the strategies to develop dialogue with diverse voices? Why do we need to have dialogue when one party does not listen and does not encourage a participative decision making process? What is the role and impact of authenticity in dialogue? Can dialogue build trust in a divided society? Whether social media and communication technology undermine or facilitate dialogue and trust? Whether true dialogue can take place in an organizational setting where it is typically turned into an instrument for other organizational goals?
This full-day event will feature a keynote roundtable discussion with international
scholars and papers from public relations scholars in China and around the world.
Papers on the preconference theme will be selected in a special issue in Public Relations Review.
Deadline: All abstract submissions must be completed online no later than 1 December, 2017 (UTC time) at firstname.lastname@example.org. For inquiries, please contact: Vincent Huang.
Authors should send a two-page Word document.
The first page should include the following information only:
1. Paper title.
2. Abstract (300 – 400 words in English).
3. Citations should be listed in a footnote. Citations containing author identity should be
On the second page, please include the following:
1. Paper title.
2. All author names, affiliations, and short bios (100 words in English maximum) listed
in the order of authorship.
3. Corresponding author and email address.
Abstract Acceptance Announcements
Acceptance notification will be sent out on 15 December 2017.
Submitting an abstract commits at least one author of any accepted submission to register for the preconference, attend and present the research in person.
Full papers of accepted abstracts that the author(s) wishes to be considered for
publication should be submitted by 30 April, 2018 at: email@example.com. Paper
submission details will be provided at a later date.
Deadline for abstract submission 1, December, 2017
Acceptance provided 15, December, 2017
Deadline for full paper and presentations 30, April, 2018
Preconference 24, May, 2018
Deadline for revised full papers 31 July, 2018
Registration Fee (including tea breaks and a lunch):
-Faculty participants (presenting papers or not): US$70.
-Graduate students (presenting papers or not): US$35.
To register to this preconference, participants need to register online at the ICA
conference registration website.
Public Relations Society of China
The pre-conference is sponsored by the Public Relations Society of China (PRSC). The
PRSC was founded in August 2015. The first president of the PRSC is Professor Chen
Xianhong from the School of Journalism and Communication at Huazhong University of
Science and Technology. The PRSC aims to advance public relations theories and practices in China. As the only national-level academic organization in the field of public relations, the PRSC not only serves as a think tank that fosters dialogue and interactions among the academia, industry and society, but also provides an important platform for academic exchange between Chinese and international public relations scholars. “Open, Diversity, Inclusion and Dialogue” are the core values of the PRSC. Its mission is to build an academic community of public relations with research inspiration, international vision, and commitment to the public. The PRSC also strives for the discipline development and industrial advancement of public relations in China. In 2017, the PRSC was awarded as an excellent secondary national-level academic association.
The European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA)
EUPRERA is an autonomous not-for-profit organisation with nearly 500 members from 40 countries interested in advancing academic research and knowledge in public relations and strategic communication. Several cross-national and comparative research and education projects are organised by affiliated universities through the Association such as the largest transnational project of the public relations field, the European Communication Monitor (ECM) now in its 12th year. In order to spread new methodologies and research results, EUPRERA organises a highly regarded annual congress each autumn in collaboration with a selected university in Europe. The congress each year publishes an edited book of selected papers from the conference and has a dedicated special Congress issue of the Journal of Communication Management.
The Charles University in Prague ranks among the oldest and most traditional universities in the world. It was established in 1348 by Charles IV, King of Bohemia and King of the Romans, who himself was very well educated and truly international persona. The Department of Marketing Communication and Public Relations is one of the youngest university bodies, and it exists within the Institute of Communication Studies and Journalism at the Faculty of Social Sciences. Nevertheless, during its relatively short presence, the department has contributed to academic background and pioneering research in the Czech Republic, namely in the fields of public relations, public affairs or marketing communication. Today, it offers most prestigious (and most wanted) undergraduate programme of Marketing Communications and Public Relations in the Czech Republic. It also publishes online news and trends from the field, which are written and edited solely by the students and graduates, called Markething.cz. Among our main research fields are marketing communication, public relations, political communication and public affairs, history of persuasive communication and psychology of communication.
Preconference: Thursday, May 24, 2018
voice and voices: exploring tensions between plurivocity and univocity
Convened by François Cooren (Université de Montréal, Canada, firstname.lastname@example.org), Chantal Benoit-Barné (Université de Montréal, Canada, email@example.com), Laurence Kaufmann (Université de Lausanne, Switzerland, firstname.lastname@example.org) and Thomas Martine (Audencia Business School, France, email@example.com)
As pointed by Robichaud et al. (2004), any (individual or collective) actor, in order to exist and be recognized as such, has at some point to be able to speak in one voice. Given the multivocity that always characterizes persons and collectives, these passages from polyphony to monophony and from monophony to polyphony are not without creating tensions between what Bakhtin (1981) identified as centripetal vs. centrifugal forces. In this preconference, we encourage scholars and researchers from many divisions to explore the nature, dynamics and regulation of these tensions by focusing on communicational events, whether in the context of organizations, political parties, governments, public debates, tribunals, psychiatric treatments or mundane conversations. We particularly encourage participants to theorize and analyze the mobilization, articulation and conciliation of alternative voices, such as the voices of facts, absent or dead persons, ecosystems, spirits, or texts, among others.
By organizing this preconference, we hope that scholars representing various divisions of the International Communication association will come together to speak about this key tension between voice and voices. We are especially thinking of members of the following divisions: Language and Social Interaction (LSI), Organizational Communication, Environmental Communication, Political Communication, Philosophy, Theory and Critique (PTC), and Public Relations, among others. As in the previous ICA preconferences we organize, a book, probably published by Routledge, could be edited from the best papers presented during this one-day event.
How to participate
For this preconference, we would like to encourage scholars to submit 500-word abstracts that explicitly (1) deal with questions related to the tensions between monophony and polyphony and (2) illustrate their approach or idea by examining a specific phenomenon or case study.
Any kind of perspective – Conversation Analysis (Pomerantz & Fehr, 1997; Sacks & Jefferson, 1992; Sanders, 2005), Actor Network Theory (ANT) (Latour, 1986; Law, 1991), CCO (Communicative Constitution of Organization) (Benoit-Barné & Cooren, 2009; Bourgoin & Bencherki, 2015; Martine et al., 2016; Taylor & Van Every, 2014), Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough, 2013; Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; van Dijk, 1993), ethnography of communication (Carbaugh & Boromisza-Habashi, 2015; Hymes, 1964; Kalou & Sadler-Smith, 2015), Relational Ontology (Kaufmann & Clément, 2015; Martine & Cooren, 2016), etc. – is welcome as long as these two requirements are met.
This preconference is officially sponsored by the following divisions: Environmental Communication; Language and Social Interaction (LSI); Organizational communication; Philosophy, Theory and Critique (PTC), Political Communication, and Public Relations. Representatives of other divisions are, of course, also welcome.
Please submit a 500-word abstract by January 15, 2018 to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Decisions will be communicated to the authors by February 1, 2018.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX : University of Texas Press.
Bartesaghi, M. (2009). How the therapist does authority: Six strategies for substituting client accounts in the session. Communication & Medicine, 6(1), 15–25.
Bartesaghi, M. (2014). Coordination: Examining Weather as a “Matter of Concern.” Communication Studies, 65(5), 535–557. http://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2014.957337
Bencherki, N., & Cooren, F. (2011). To have or not to be: the possessive constitution of organization. Human Relations, 64(12), 1579–1607. http://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424227
Benoit-Barné, C., & Cooren, F. (2009). The Accomplishment of Authority Through Presentification: How Authority Is Distributed Among and Negotiated by Organizational Members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 5–31. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909335414
Bourgoin, A., & Bencherki, N. (2015). The performance of authority in organizations. Presented at the European Group for Organization Studies, Athens, Greece.
Carbaugh, D., & Boromisza-Habashi, D. (2015). Ethnography of Communication. In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi119/abstract
Castor, T., & Cooren, F. (2006). Organizations as Hybrid forms of Life: The Implications of the Selection of Agency in Problem Formulation. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(4), 570–600. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318905284764
Chiang, S.-Y. (2015). Power and Discourse. In K. Tracy, C. Ilie, & T. Sandel (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi149/abstract
Cooren, F. (Ed.). (2007). Interacting and organizing: analyses of a management meeting. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cooren, F., & Matte, F. (2010). For a constitutive pragmatics: Obama, Médecins Sans Frontières and the measuring stick. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 9–31. http://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.02coo
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hymes, D. (1964). Introduction: Toward Ethnographies of Communication. American Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34. http://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00010
Kalou, Z., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Using Ethnography of Communication in Organizational Research. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 629.
, & (2015). Must cognitive anthropology be mentalistic ? Moving towards a relational ontology of social reality. , 23 (2) pp. 201-203.
Latour, B. (1986). The Powers of Association. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 264–280). London: Routledge.
Law, J. (1991). A Sociology of monsters: essays on power, technology, and domination. New York: Routledge.
Martine, T. & Cooren, F. (2016). A relational approach to materiality and organization: The case of a creative idea. In: Introna, L., Kavanagh, D., Kelly, S., Orlikowski, W. & Scott, S. (eds.) Beyond interpretivism? New encounters with technology and organization. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Martine, T., Cooren, F., Bénel, A. & Zacklad, M. (2016). What does really matter in technology adoption and use? A CCO approach. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 164-187.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 64–91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Robichaud, D., Giroux, H., & Taylor, J. R. (2004). The meta-conversation: The recursive property of language as the key to organizing. Academy of Management Review, 29, 617-634.
Reed, M. (2010). Is Communication Constitutive of Organization? Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 151–157. http://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909351583
Sacks, H., & Jefferson, G. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford, UK ; Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.
Sanders, R. E. (2005). Preface to section II: Conversation analysis. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 67–70). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip0420/2004016806.html
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2011). The situated organization: Studies in the pragmatics of communication research. New York, NY: Routledge.
Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2014). When Organization Fails: Why Authority Matters. New York, NY: Routledge.
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249–283. http://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006
Call for Papers: EGOS 2018 Colloquium
The EGOS Standing Working Group (SWG) No. 05 “Organization as Communication” is happy to announce the sub-theme for the EGOS 2018 Colloquium in Tallinn, Estonia (July 5-7, 2017).
The sub-theme No. 05 entitled “Organization as Communication: The Enduring and Fading Away of Organizations” will be facilitated by Consuelo Vásquez, François Cooren and Jeanne Mengis.
As you will see in the Call for Papers, the sub-theme places a special focus on the formative and constitutive role of communication in making organization ³go on mattering,² which also brings forth the precariousness and vulnerability of these collective accomplishments. That said, we also invite conceptual or empirical papers that more generally apply a communication-centered or discursive lens to study organizational phenomena of various kinds.
We are looking forward to receiving your short paper submissions (max. 3,000 words) by Jan. 8th, 2018 via the EGOS website.
In case of any questions, please contact Consuelo via email.
CFP: IEEE Computer Special Issue on Web Science
Abstracts (email@example.com): 1 October 2017
Full paper: 1 November 2017
Publication date: June 2018
For more details, see: https://www.computer.org/computer-magazine/2017/05/08/web-science-call-for-papers/
CFP: Journal of Business Ethics Special Issue
Special Issue theme: “Linking Corporate Reputation and Accountability: Antecedents, Mechanisms, Paradoxes, and Outcomes”
Deadline: January 1, 2018
Craig E. Carroll, New York University, firstname.lastname@example.org
Rowena Olegario, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, email@example.com
Accountability is a concept about being answerable to someone for something that matters. It requires the accountor to be capable of being observed, monitored, and evaluated through its willingness to provide material information and provides clear consequences for failure. Scholars have investigated the roles of corporate governance, CSR reporting, auditors, and credit rating agencies, in upholding - or failing to uphold - corporate accountability (Bendell, 2005; Brennan & Solomon, 2008; Coffee, 2002; Gray, et. al., 1997; Newell, 2005; Partnoy, 1999; Utting, 2008; Valor, 2005). Yet even with these recent studies, corporate accountability remains under-researched and under-theorized.
Many studies of corporate reputation, as well as business folk-wisdom, assume that reputation is a mechanism for keeping companies honest, a crucial attribute of accountability. As business magnate Warren Buffet famously observed: “It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you’ll do things differently.” Implicit in Buffett’s formulation is the notion that the threat of losing a good reputation always constrains corporate opportunism. Yet recent and classic examples illustrate that even prominent public firms, which stand to lose the most from a tarnished reputation, engage in dishonest behavior for the sake of short-term benefits. At the same time, there are multiple cases of companies that have engaged in malfeasance without suffering lasting reputational harm. In 2017, for example, Volkswagen reported healthy sales despite having been subjected to fines and negative media scrutiny of its emissions cheating. Given that there are so many exceptions to the ‘Buffett rule,’ it is imperative to ask what role reputation plays in holding companies to account, provided that all organizations even care about their reputations in the first place.
We believe that this is an optimal moment to explicitly link the constructs of accountability and corporate reputation. In the past, scholars have equated accountability with being responsible (Lorenzo-Molo & Udani, 2013) or viewed accountability as an outcome of disclosing CSR investment (Brown-Liburd, Cohen, Zamora (in press). Only a few studies have specifically investigated how reputation constrains corporate wrongdoing (Lin-Hi and Blumberg, 2016; Wright, 2016; Sampath, Gardberg, Rahman, 2016; He, Pittman, and Rui, 2016; Hardeck and Hertl, 2014; Ma and Parks, 2012; Reuber and Fischer, 2010; Frances-Gomez and del Rio, 2008; Sacconi, 2007). Accountability, CSR, and corporate reputation are linked-- many corporations engage in CSR precisely because they hope to burnish their reputations--but there is growing skepticism about the authenticity, effectiveness, and sufficiency of CSR disclosure and engagement for holding organizations accountable.
Our proposal then is to begin theorizing new ways that reputation can be linked with accountability. We welcome theoretical and empirical papers from a wide range of social science and humanities traditions, particularly on the following questions and approaches:
1. What are the links between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics?
The special issue calls for papers to reflect upon the nature, full extent, and variety of configurations that can exist between reputation and accountability.
Which theoretical lenses explain the opportunities, risks, paradoxes, successes, and failures of reputation mechanisms?
How do definitions, goals, and criteria for corporate accountability differ for people on Main Street vs. Wall Street, and how do these different understandings affect the practice and efficacy of reputation mechanism?
To what extent are favorable perceptions of an organization’s social, financial, and environmental performance an outcome of, a precursor of, a substitute for, or a means to avoid, corporate accountability? Can transparency be used to avoid accountability?
What are the ethical issues at play when excellent performance in one sphere (for example, offering a highly popular consumer product) moderates, distracts, or compensates from poor reputations in other spheres (such as a corporation’s contributions to environmental degradation)?
2. What are the unexplored, adverse, unanticipated and paradoxical relationships between corporate reputation, accountability, and ethics? What are the impacts upon performance of these different relationships?
The special issue seeks papers that look ahead at how instituting accountability mechanisms creates new organization-society dynamics.
Is there/will there be such a thing as too much accountability? If so, how does this change our understanding of what constitutes ethical practices?
What is the relationship between ‘facts,’ reputation, and accountability? How will recent developments in online platforms and social media change those dynamics in the business sphere?
How does organizational performance change the relationship between reputation and accountability? How does accountability change the relationship between reputation and organizational performance?
What are the consequences for personal, organizational, and societal health?
Bendell, J. (2005). In Whose Name? The Accountability of Corporate Social Responsibility. Development in Practice 15 (3-4): 362-374. doi: 10.1080/09614520500075813
Brennan, N.M. and Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate Governance, Accountability and Mechanisms of Accountability: An Overview. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 21 (7): 885-906. doi:10.1108/09513570810907401
Brown-Liburd, H., Cohen, J., & Zamora, V. L. (in press) CSR Disclosure Items Used as Fairness Heuristics in the Investment Decision. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3307-3
Buffett, M. & Clark, D. (2006). The Tao of Warren Buffett: Warren Buffett’s Words of Wisdom.
Coffee, J.C. (2002). Understanding Enron: ‘It’s About the Gatekeepers, Stupid.’ The Business Lawyer 57 (4): 1403-1420.
Frances-Gomez, P. & del Rio, A. (2008). Stakeholder’s Preference and Rational Compliance: A Comment on Sacconi’s ‘CSR as a Model for Extended Corporate Governance II: Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity.’ Journal of Business Ethics 82(1) 59-76. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9562-6
Gray, R., Day, C., Owen, D., Evans, R., and Zadek, S. (1997). Struggling with the Praxis of Social Accounting. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 10 (3): 325-364. doi:10.1108/09513579710178106
Hardeck, I., & Hertl, R. (2014). Consumer Reactions to Corporate Tax Strategies: Effects on Corporate Reputation and Purchasing Behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(2), 309-326. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1843-7.
He, X., Pittman, J., & Rui, O. (2016). Reputational Implications for Partners After a Major Audit Failure: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(4), 702-722. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2770-6
Lin-Hi, N. & Blumberg, I. (in press). The Link Between (Not) Practicing CSR and Corporate Reputation: Psychological Foundations and Managerial Implications. Journal of Business Ethics. 10.1007/s10551-016-3164-0
Ma, L., & McLean Parks, J. (2012). Your Good Name: The Relationship Between Perceived Reputational Risk and Acceptability of Negotiation Tactics. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(2), 161-175. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0987-6.
Newell, P. (2005). Citizenship, Accountability and Community: The Limits of the CSR Agenda. International Affairs 81 (3): 541-557. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x
Partnoy, F. (1999). The Siskel and Ebert of Financial Markets: Two Thumbs Down for the Credit Rating Agencies. Washington University Law Quarterly 77 (3): 619-714.
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (2010). Organizations Behaving Badly: When Are Discreditable Actions Likely to Damage Organizational Reputation? Journal of Business Ethics, 93(1), 39-50. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0180-3.
Sacconi, L. (2007). A Social Contract Account for CSR as an Extended Model of Corporate Governance (II): Compliance, Reputation and Reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics 75 (1): 77-96. Doi: 10.1007/s10551-006-9014-8
Sampath, V. S., Gardberg, N. A., & Rahman, N. (in press). Corporate Reputation’s Invisible Hand: Bribery, Rational Choice, and Market Penalties. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3242-3
Utting, P. (2008). The Struggle for Corporate Accountability. Development and Change 39: 959-975. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2008.00523.x
Valor, C. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Citizenship: Towards Corporate Accountability. Business and Society Review 110 (2): 191-212. doi: 10.1111/j.0045-3609.2005.00011.x
Wright, C. F. (2016). Leveraging Reputational Risk: Sustainable Sourcing Campaigns for Improving Labour Standards in Production Networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(1), 195-210. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2552-1
Process for submitting papers
Questions about expectations, requirements, the appropriateness of a topic, etc, should be directed to the guest editors of the special issue: Craig Carroll or Rowena Olegario.
Papers submitted must not have been published, accepted for publication, or presently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Submissions should be approximately 8,000 words in length. Papers should employ standard English and provide authors’ names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and physical addresses on the front page. Manuscripts must follow the journal’s guidelines. Authors are strongly encouraged to refer to the Journal of Business Ethics website and the instructions on submitting a paper. For more information see: http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/10551.
Submission to the special issue– by January 1, 2018 – is required through Editorial Manager at http://secure-web.cisco.com/1n0ytIUGyTN7hkDPXQ5J0uPJ55rhMdarPbsNGNZj1-nc-dGmk5xaNjMnUbW7D4XCdHQcUqfx_7S4Z0lVtm4rQEjbLB_AGlXmGhQhGNYOykdUcQZ-3JMqNcJJFqpNKu8skb2c2c3vYvwzY-4GVa4U32pxQN-pQyFSV2-z_OkJ6h9MXo6if6KgTFxA-mq3jEeaVn7fS7IY5acAbyoMWarFlKtct_cWcGfqQKpdTWIANVZt0O1gDBZN_6N9dD9RxkQ7Zxp4Tlj5uDa4OLELlVEvfHs6Dz90NoDjLs8AimfBFjk4FKR2H8meS0Bk-sWybr2r4/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.editorialmanager.com/busi/. Upon submission, please indicate that your submission is to this Special Issue of JBE, Linking Corporate Reputation + Accountability.
The deadline for the first completed draft is January 1, 2018 followed by a peer-review process until April, 4, 2018. The deadline for the second draft is December 4, 2018. The deadline for the whole volume will be March 1, 2019.
About Journal of Business Ethics
The Journal of Business Ethics publishes only original articles from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives concerning ethical issues related to business that bring something new or unique to the discourse in their field. The Journal’s impact factor is 1.837 (2015). This journal is one of the 50 journals used by the Financial Times in compiling the prestigious Business School research rank.