Kenneth Weir

What are we to do with feral publishers

This article examines the profits and practices of commercial journal publishers and argues for an appropriate response from the academic community.

Publisher, be damned! From price gouging to the open road

All four authors are members of the Leicester school of critical management and have previously written together on academic publishing. David Harvie lectures in finance and is interested in ethical issues related to this and other matters. He is a member of The Free Association writing collective. Geoff Lightfoot lectures in entrepreneurship and has particular interests in the ideology of markets and critical accounting. Simon Lilley works on information aspects of organisation and is currently head of the School of Management at Leicester University. Kenneth Weir is interested in accounting practices, especially critical and social accounting.

Examining the theoretical influences of customer valuation metrics

Within the previous two decades there has been an intensification of marketing activity from which there has emerged a series of concepts relating to customer profitability and value. These developments have led to the establishment of a series of techniques regarding customer valuation and can be separated into three distinct categories: customer profitability calculations; customer lifetime value; and customer equity. This paper seeks to clarify and discuss the theoretical influences upon these categories, whilst also presenting some implications for the future development of customer valuation metrics.

The purposes, promises and compromises of extinction accounting in the UK public sector

The purpose of this paper is to explore the state of extinction accounting, and the motivations for its use in the UK public sector. Prior studies are mostly concerned with corporate attempts to account for species, despite studies in related areas calling for examinations of the public sector context.,The paper analyses the use of extinction accounting in three separate case organisations, conducting a total of 21 interviews across the three cases. Interviews were conducted with a range of organisational participants each having experience with extinction accounting.,Interviews reveal a number of common uses and applications of extinction accounting across the three councils. Practices are used to generate reports on species loss and recovery within each region, and to facilitate planning for species protection and recovery. However, in attempting to use this information, key trade-offs emerge between satisfying economic and ecological criteria, and even trade-offs are created regarding development of protection schemes. This leads to a subversion of extinction accounting.,Commensurate with prior studies in the corporate context, the study finds the presence of an economic logic impinging upon ecological decision making, suggesting that practices of extinction accounting may be affected by the same acknowledged economic motivations that reside in corporate attempts to account for nature.,The paper makes an important contribution by evaluating the public sector context of extinction accounting, which is lacking in existing research. The findings relating to the public sector use of species and extinction information also provide a useful context to understand how relatively new social and environmental accounting practices are deployed in organisations, as well as some indication of their effectiveness and limitations.

Organization studies of inequality, with and beyond Piketty:

Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century did much to bring discussions of economic inequality into the intellectual and popular mainstream. This article indicates how business, management and organization studies can productively engage with Piketty’s book. It does this by deriving practical consequences from Piketty’s proposed division of intellectual labour in general and his account of ‘super-managers’ in particular. There are organizational specificities to inequality which Piketty’s framework does not address, however. His account of corporate governance, of tax avoidance policy and of financialization, in particular, requires significant conceptual and empirical supplementation. We argue that business, management and organizational scholars should contribute to the cross-disciplinary inequality research project which Capital in the 21st Century proposes not despite these limitations but because of them.