Call for Papers - 3rd Common Good - International Conference 2025

After the success of the previous years and the continuing dynamic around Common Good HRM, we are pleased to announce a call for papers for our 3rd Common Good HRM International Conference 2025 which will be organized by the Common Good HRM International Research Network and hosted by the Institute for Human Resource Management, WU-Vienna, Austria, The Louvain Research Institute in Management and Organizations (LouRIM) at UC Louvain, Belgium, The Open University Business School, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom, and (newly) Napier University, Edinburgh and The University of Otago, New Zealand with the main theme:

In accordance with our philosophy of open-access, affordability and sustainability, the conference is free of change and will take place online on 11th -12th March, 2025.

As usual, full and developmental papers and abstracts will be accepted and this year we will be offering sessions for PhD students and practitioners.

We look forward to many interesting submissions and wish to thank the scientific advisory team of Ina Aust, Fang Lee Cooke and Michael Müller-Camen, the whole scientific committee and our session chairs for offering their valuable time to ensure that the quality of the conference remains as high as possible.

The conference organizing team would also like to express our gratitude to our partner organizations: WU-Vienna, UC Louvain, The Open University-UK, Napier University and The University of Otago.

Recently, the 2024 Nobel Prize for literature in economics was awarded to Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson (both MIT) and James A. Robertson (university of Chicago), for their work exploring the link between strong democratic institutions, economic prosperity and human flourishing (nobelprize.org). By drawing attention to how long-term economic growth is dependent on a healthy common (rule of law, political and economic liberties), achieved mostly through social struggle, they explicitly corelate economic progress with the protection of human rights and opportunities for collective action (Acemoglu, 2005). Simultaneously the award comes at a time of growing insecurities, a lack of rational debate and a loss of trust in established democratic institutions, including universities and academic opinion (Gustafsson, Gillespie, Searle, Hope and Dietz, 2021). As a result, convincing organizations and people to question established assumptions of self-interest and shift routines and behaviour towards more collaboration to address the shared challenges of economic disruption, ecological depletion, labour market exploitation and political extremism has become increasingly difficult but also more pressing than ever (Bertassini, Ometto, Severengiz and Gerolamo, 2021). In addition, in this polarized context, a natural tendency and strategic response of organizations is to be defensive and to reply on past and proven conservative models of operating such as entrenchment and preserving (Wenzel, Stanske and Lieberman, 2020). On the other hand, in times of crisis, important stakeholder relationships come under intense pressure and these need to be managed accordingly, often requiring innovative unorthodox solutions (Coutchesne, Stynen, Semeijn and Caniels, 2024), which in turn, demands more contextual awareness, openness and outreach to external stakeholders (Kozachenko, Anand and Shirokova, 2022). Here lies an inherent dilemma which needs to be resolved.

Within the domain of workplace relations and HRM, amongst both practitioners and researchers a similar debate is occurring about how to navigate insecurities (Harney, Collings, 2021), maintain strategic agility and competitiveness (Tarba, Frynas, Liu, wood and Fainshmidt, 2023) and how to create partnerships for sustainability (Fonseca, Crossan, Weaver, Tan, Bratton and Pershina, 2023), while at the same time, protecting employees from external threats to voice, motivation, health and well-being (Guest, 2017). This has resulted in a number of multistakeholder and human-centric proposals to improve long-term sustainable performance (Podgorodnichenko, Akmal, Edgar and Everett, 2022; Stahl, Brewster, Collings and Hajro, 2020). Although these differ in range, scope and critical depth, a fundamental argument is that organizations will need to radically reorientate in the face of a ‘new normality’ of disruption and uncertainty, including reconsidering the viability of alternative ‘outside-in’ models of multilevel, socio-ecological and economic purpose (Bratton and Paulett, 2022).

Concurrently, as organizations attempt to embrace change and to rethink their strategies to better respond to externalities (mostly from a firm-centric perspective), the alternative concept of Sustainable Human Resource Management (SustHRM) has gained increasing interest (Anlesinya and Susomrith, 2020). Rather than prioritizing economic results, and serving (single) shareholder interests, as traditional strategic models do (Matthews and Müller-Camen, 2025), SustHRM stresses the contribution of (multiple) stakeholders to long-term organizational success. This approach, however, involves a fundamental change in the relationship between corporations, society and the environment (Aust and Gehrke, 2024). Positively, a shift towards a more communal conceptualisation of business value reflects an increased awareness of how changing external circumstances can adversely and rapidly impact (in the past perceived successful) established business strategies (Aust, Matthews and MüllerCamen, 2020).

In parallel, and due to a lack of HR connectivity and societal (and ecological) impact, and in an attempt to change the narrative and where possible to overcome persistent institutional barriers, a new type of SustHRM (with a stronger emphasis on stakeholder relations, employee voice and collective action) has emerged and seems to have captured the ‘Zeitgeist’.

Common Good Human Resource Management (CGHRM) originally introduced a few years ago as a new ‘outside-in’ type of SustHRM (Aust et al, 2020), was recently further developed and defined as a relational multi-stakeholder approach to work and employment relations, characterized by a focus on maximum stakeholder empowerment to achieve sustainability (Matthews and Müller-Camen, 2025). A core premise is that businesses have a relational obligation to secure the well-being of all of their stakeholders, including the local community and their specific eco-system, expressed for example by a heightened commitment to the United Nations Development Goals (SDGs) (Aust, Cooke, Müller-Camen and Wood, 2024). It therefore transcends earlier CSR, TBL and firm-centric approaches with the more integrated goal of human and organizational well-being, derived from a wider societal, ecological and economic flourishing (eudaimonia). CGHRM as a result, challenges a number of assumptions of the role of business and HRM. CGHRM argues that 1. Organizational purpose needs to be built on an ‘outside-in’ commitment to protecting shared common goods including democratic liberties, 2. That decision making has to be driven by common good values (CGVs) and as inclusive as possible, 3. That HR strategies and practices need to be designed to maximize stakeholder participation and address discrimination and 4. The ultimate goal being long-term economic success and profits while also creating sustainable, inclusive and resilient workplaces and people.

One major HRM challenge linked to increasing uncertainty and insecurity and of growing research interest is how workplace anxiety and mental health issues are adversely impacting employee performance and this needs to be addressed at multiple levels of HRM engagement (Cooke and Xu, 2024). Research shows that declining mental health amongst workers has several HR-factor related causes. Work intensification, over-time pressure, precarity, a lack of dignity and recognition, a loss of voice all combine to erode well-being and increase feelings of helplessness (Saei and Liu, 2024). On the other hand, resilience is a vital factor in maintaining employee well-being and mental health, and in turn organizational success and sustainability (Lu, Zhang, Yang and Wang, 2023). From an individual and psychological angle, resilience can be viewed as the ability to ‘bounce back’ from setbacks and to utilize difficult life experiences as opportunities to learn and grow (Cooper, Liu and Tarba, 2014). Sustainable HRM can support this process by establishing the necessary (trustful, supportive, reciprocal and empowering) conditions and positive relational climate (Mossholder, Richardson and Settoon, 2011). Recent case-study research has shown that SustHRM can for example, prove effective in combating stress and work intensification when concerns of social well-being are properly integrated in HRM practices (Järlström, Saru and Pekkarinen, 2023). However, certain (e.g., TBL) types of SustHRM which aim to create some sort of win-win, paradoxically often (through role ambiguity) create more stress, anxiety and illness (Bush, 2023). A more holistic CGHRM on the other hand, which prioritizes employee self-efficacy and a culture of dignity and solidarity which enhances social capital and workplace reciprocal behaviour has been shown to improve employee engagement and resilience (Lu et al, 2023). These findings support calls for more pluralistic and contextual approaches which make use of the collaborative potential of publicprivate and internal-external stakeholder initiatives to combat the deepening problem of workrelated stress and declining mental health (Cooke and Xu, 2024).

A second and related issue is spreading intolerance and the increasing marginalization and discrimination of minorities at a societal level and a lack of progress with regard to inclusion and equality within organizations. And this despite decades of formalized and targeted HRM interventions (Roberson, Quinetta, King and Hebl, 2020). Recently, scholars have argued that the current situation of minority discrimination demands a more human-centric HR approach embedded in values of human rights, workplace democracy and solidarity and one which explores the underlining socio-economic power dynamics of inequality (Cooke, Dickman and Perry, 2022). Similarly, from a common’s perspective, the aim of (especially social-) sustainability requires that, rather than mirroring deteriorating external conditions and bias, a critical and progressive HRM should endeavor to question the status quo and actively confront the contextual and institutional barriers which (particularly poor, female and disempowered) employees are facing in their journey towards personal and career fulfillment (Matthews, Obereder, Aust and Müller-Camen, 2017).

Common Good HRM as an alternative model of sustainable employee relations considers voice and empowerment as vital factors in both worker and organizational well-being, but also as core elements in a sustainable transition. It provides a useful framework in developing more ethical and positive employee behaviors which prioritize collective interests (Pham, Jabbour, Pereira, Usman, Al and Vo‐Thanh, (2023). A democracy-centric and collective action perspective which other sustainable HRM models have perhaps underrated. This awareness is reflected in the goal and theme of this year’s conference, Navigating Insecurities: Advancing Common Good HRM for Sustainable, Inclusive and Resilient Workplaces. We aim to enrich our shared knowledge of how CGHRM (in a situation of global socio-political upheaval and unprecedented technological change) can contribute to helping employees and managers develop better communication skills and coping strategies, build resilience and to thrive both in the workplace and as active, fully engaged social actors.

We welcome high-quality submissions across diverse research fields and theoretical backgrounds that could help advance our understanding of how to develop, initiate, implement, and sustain a CGHRM within the workplace from a broad range of complementary perspectives, e.g., Socioeconomics, Business-Ethics, Organization Studies and Sustainable HRM.

Questions and potential areas of interest include, but are not limited to:

CGHRM and HRM purpose, role and practices:

• How can HRM change its purpose towards the common welfare of society?
• How can a Common-Good HRM approach enable HRM managers to balance short-term economic and long-term common-good goals?
• How can CGHRM be implemented, especially in main-stream organizations?
• What does CGHRM mean for models and practices of strategic-fit?

CGHRM and institutional barriers to voice, inclusion and equality:

• How can CGHRM help overcome institutional barriers to employee empowerment?
• How can CGHRM contribute to achieving gender equality?
• How does CGHRM influence established ideologies of control and power relations?

CGHRM and mental health:

• How can CGHRM mitigate the adverse effects of socio-economic disruption and uncertainty?
• How can CGHRM help build employee resilience?
• How can HRM redefine itself as a facilitator of positive workplace experiences?
• How can CGHRM enrich existing models of employee well-being?

CGHRM and ecological leadership:

• How can CGHRM support the development of HR ecological leadership?
• How can HRM managers become leaders of societal and ecological sustainability?
• What type(s) of leadership style(s) is / are best suited to a CGHRM approach?
• What new skills and competencies will be required from HRM leaders?

CGHRM and digitalization:

• How does digitalization impact the operationalization of a CGHRM agenda?
• How can HR managers use digitalization to advance ecological and societal progress?
• How can CGHRM help employees better prepare for the AI-transformation?

CGHRM, organizational type and culture:

• How compatible is CGHRM with traditional and more hierarchical organizational cultures?
• How can CGHRM address the danger of cultural relativism?
• How do different regional/cultural contexts influence the implementation of a CommonGood HRM?
• How does organizational type (for-profit, non-profit, B-Corp, social-enterprise, family business) impact Common-Good HRM adoption?

CGHRM impact:

• How can more multi-disciplinary research be encouraged?
• How can CGHRM provide better opportunities for research collaboration?
• How can CGHRM impact be best assessed and measured?
• What needs to be done to engage practitioners more with CGHRM?

Organizing committee:

Olga Andrianova (The Open University-UK), Andrew Bratton (ex-Napier-Edinburgh), Brian Matthews (WU-Vienna), Stefanie Neubauer (WU-Vienna), Nataliya Podgorodnichenko (University of Otago-NZ), Katharina Spaeth and Çiğdem Vatansever (T. Namik Kemal University-TR). Back Office: Petra Peck (WU-Vienna).

Scientific committee:

• Prof. Fang Lee Cooke (Monash University, Australia).
• Prof. Ina Aust (LouRIM at UC Louvain, Belgium).
• Michael Müller-Camen (WU-Vienna).
• Prof. Fiona Edgar (Otago University, New Zealand).
• Dr. Maria Järlström (University of Vaasa, Finland).
• Prof. Judith Semeijn (Open University, Netherlands)
• Dr. Nhat Tan Pham (National University, Vietnam).
• Prof. Geoffrey Wood (Western University, Canada).

Date: Tuesday 11th to Wednesday 12th March 2025. Venue: Online

The online access details will be sent to your email address a few days prior to the event.

Paper submission and registration:

We will send out the submissions for peer-review and inform you in a timely manner if your paper is accepted for the conference.

The registration is open from 2nd of January until 28th of February 2023 on our website. More information on the registration will follow. Participation is free of charge.

For further information, please contact CGRM-Network@open.ac.uk, brian.matthews@wu.ac.at or olga.andrianova@open.ac.uk.

Downloadable documents