Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping Concepts and Issues in the Ethics of the Commons: Introduction to the Special Issue

  • Editorial Essay
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We introduce the papers in this special issue by providing an overarching perspective on the variety in kinds of commons and the ethical issues stemming from their diversity. Despite a long history of local commons management, recent decades have witnessed a surge of scholarly interest in the concept of “the commons,” including a growing management literature. This swell was impelled especially by Garrett Hardin’s paper of 1968, and the body of work generated by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues. However, the term itself has come to be used in a variety of ways. To contextualize its ethical dimensions, we map a number of commons-related concepts such as common-pool resources, common property regime, excludability and subtractability, common-pool resource types and commons or “commoning” as a source of production. Following a brief summary of papers in this special issue, the essay concludes with an identification of implications for research, practice and policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The term “common” sometimes appears in the literature with the definite article (the), sometimes with the indefinite article (a), and sometimes with neither. De Moor (2011, p. 423) identifies the use with either article as the “historical “ use, referring to “a set of well-defined and circumscribed resources (usually land), with rules and sanctions attached to them.” She contrasts this with the “more recent use” without either article, and referring to “anything not privately held.” While this may be a rough guide to the way the term is used in the literature, we have found many exceptions to it, including the use in Hardin’s influential article, and have not attempted to preserve a rigorous distinction between the two uses in our text.

  2. This figure is an adaptation of a standard table in economic literature, and used by commons’ scholars, including several we have cited (e.g. De Moor 2011, McKean 2000), in a variety of ways.

  3. In “Critiquing Commons Scholarship” section we acknowledge the influence of Dietz et al. (2002).

References

  • Agrawal, A. (1999). Greener pastures: Politics, markets and community amongst migrant pastoral people. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2001). Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development, 29(10), 1649–1672.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2002). Common resources and institutional sustainability. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 41–85). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akrivou, K., & Sison, A. J. G. (2016). The challenges of capitalism for virtue ethics and the common good: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albareda, L., & Waddock, S. (2018). Networked CSR governance: A whole network approach to meta-governance. Business & Society, 57(4), 636–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansari, S., Wijen, F., & Gray, B. (2013). Constructing a climate change logic: An institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”. Organization Science, 24(4), 1014–1040.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitakis, J. (2006). The commons: Opening and enclosing non-commodified space. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies, 3(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baland, J.-M., & Platteau, J.-P. (2004). Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. L., & King, A. A. (2008). Good fences make good neighbors: A longitudinal analysis of an industry self-regulatory institution. Academy of Management Journal, 51(6), 1150–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (1998). Overcoming agoraphobia: Building the commons of the digitally networked environment. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 11(2), 287–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2004). Commons-based strategies and the problems of patents. Science, 305(5687), 1110–1111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (Ed.). (1989). Common property resources: Ecology and community-based sustainable development. London, UK: Belhaven Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bird, E. J., & Wagner, G. G. (1997). Sport as a common property resource: A solution to the dilemmas of doping. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(6), 749–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørklund, I. (1990). Sámi reindeer pastoralism as an indigenous resource management system in Northern Norway: A contribution to the common property debate. Development and Change, 21, 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmar, E. (2006). Appropriating “the commons”: The tragedy of property rights discourse. In S. Low & N. Smith (Eds.), The politics of public space (pp. 49–80). New York: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boal, I. A. (1998). The campus and the commons. Common Property Resource Digest, 46, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D. (2001). Public assets, private profits: Reclaiming the American commons in an age of market enclosure. Washington, DC: New American Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (2014). The wealth of the commons: A world beyond market and state. Amherst, MA: Levellers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, N., & de Jong, M. (2006). Privatisation of seaport infrastructures: A framework for understanding the transfer of property rights. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2(2/3), 294–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, F. E., Bansal, P., & Slawinski, N. (2018). Scale matters: The scale of environmental issues in corporate collective actions. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1411–1436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, J. (2008). The public domain: Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brin, D. (1995). The internet as a commons. Information Technology and Libraries, 14(4), 240–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W., & Cochrane, J. A. (1994). Understanding the global commons. EPAT/MUCIA Research & Training, University of Wisconsin, (Working Paper, no. 13), 1–23.

  • Bryden, J., & Geisler, C. (2007). Community-based land reform: Lessons from Scotland. Land Use Policy, 24(1), 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, S. J. (1998). The global commons: An introduction. Washington, DC: Island press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caffentzis, G. (2010). The future of 'the commons’: Neoliberalism’s ‘plan b’ or the original disaccumulation of capital? New Formations, 69, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V., & Bishop, R. C. (1975). Common property as a concept in natural resource policy. Natural Resources Journal, 15, 713–727.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Filippi, P., & Tréguer, F. (2015). Expanding the Internet commons: The subversive potential of wireless community networks. Journal of Peer Production 6.

  • Dell’Angelo, J., D’Odorico, P., Rulli, M. C., & Marchand, P. (2017). The tragedy of the grabbed commons: Coercion and dispossession in the global land rush. World Development, 92, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Moor, T. (2011). From common pastures to global commons: A historical perspective on interdisciplinary approaches to commons. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 19(4), 422–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Des Jardins, J. R. (2012). Environmental ethics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, P. (2016). Destituent entrepreneurship: Disobeying sovereign rule, prefiguring post-capitalist reality. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(7–8), 563–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T., Dolsak, N., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2002). The drama of the commons. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 3–35). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1994). Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, R. A. (2002). The allocation of the commons: Parking on public roads. Journal of Legal Studies, 31(2), S515–S544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauchart, E., & Cowan, R. (2014). Weak links and the management of of reputational interdependencies. Strategic Management Journal, 35(4), 532–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Conflict. In D. R. Forsyth (Ed.), Group dynamics (5th ed., pp. 388–389). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, V. (2013). Commoning: On the social organisation of the commons. Management, 16(4), 433–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frémeaux, S. (2020). A Common good perspective on diversity. Business Ethics Quarterly, 30(2), 200–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischmann, B. M. (2005). Infrastructure commons. Michigan State Law Review, 89(4), 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson-Graham, J. K., Cameron, J., & Healy, S. (2016). Commoning as a postcapitalist politics. In A. Amin & P. Howell (Eds.), Releasing the commons: Rethinking the futures of the commons (pp. 192–212). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, H. S. (1954). The economic theory of a common-property resource: The fishery. The Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 124–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groves, T., & Ledyard, J. (1977). Optimal allocation of public goods: A solution to the “free rider” problem. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 45, 783–809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, J. (2003). Sustaining a sacramental commons. Dialog, 42(3), 235–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E. M. (1994). The commons and the moral organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 253–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H. (2007). Community-led social venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(2), 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A. (1998). The tragedy of the anticommons. Property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harvard Law Review, 111(3), 621–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C. (2000). Is there anything new under the sun? A discussion and survey of studies on new commons and the Internet. Proceedings from Constituting the Commons–the eighth biennial conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bloomingdon, Indiana, May 31–June 4.

  • Hess, C. (2008). Mapping the new commons. Proceedings from Governing Shared Resources: Connecting Local Experience to Global Challenges, University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, England, July 14–18.

  • Hess, C. (2012). The unfolding of the knowledge commons. St Antony’s International Review, 8(1), 13–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2003). Ideas, artifacts, and facilities: Information as a common-pool resource. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1/2), 111–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess, C., & Ostrom, E. (2011). Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiatt, H. H. (1975). Protecting the medical commons: Who is responsible? New England Journal of Medicine, 293, 235–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman, B. A., & Lukose, R. M. (1997). Social dilemmas and internet congestion. Science, 277(5325), 535–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, L. H. (1998). Created Commons. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the visual arts. Retrieved 2 April 2020, from https://www.warholfoundation.org/paperseries/article8.htm.

  • Illich, I. (1983). Silence is a commons. The Coevolution Quarterly, 40, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Murtola, A.-M. (2012). Entrepreneurship and expropriation. Organization, 19(5), 635–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, K., Tatli, A., Özbilgin, M. F., & Bell, M. P. (2013). The tragedy of the uncommons: Reframing workforce diversity. Human Relations, 66(2), 271–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joranson, K. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and the knowledge commons. The International Information & Library Review, 40(1), 64–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, J. (2011). Scottish land reform and indigenous peoples' rights: Self-determination and historical reversibility. Social Anthropology, 19(2), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. A., Lenox, M., & Barnett, M. L. (2002). Strategic responses to the reputation commons problem. In A. Hoffman & M. Ventresca (Eds.), Organizations, policy, and the natural environment: Institutional and strategic perspectives (pp. 393–406). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleit, R. G. (2004). Designing and managing public housing self-sufficiency programs: The youngs lake commons program. Evaluation Review, 28(5), 363–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kranich, N. (2006). Countering enclosure: Reclaiming the knowledge commons. In C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding knowledge as a commons: From theory to practice (pp. 85–122). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libecap, G. (1990). Contracting for property rights. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lucchi, N. (2013). Understanding genetic information as a commons: From bioprospecting to personalized medicine. International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), 313–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, F. (2010). A common claim: Community land ownership in the Outer Hebrides. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 319–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., & Engels, K. (1967). Capital. A critique of political economy. New York, NY: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKean, M. A. (2000). Common property: What is it, what is it good for, and what makes it work. In C. Gibson, M. McKean, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance (pp. 27–55). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meretz, S. (2012). The structural communality of the commons. In D. Bollier & S. Helfrich (Eds.), The wealth of the commons (pp. 28–44). Amherst, MA: Levellers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C. (2020). The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities. Journal of Business Venturing, 35(5), 106034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., & Hudon, M. (2017). Alternative organizations in finance: Commoning in complementary currencies. Organization, 24(5), 629–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, C., & Hudon, M. (2019). Money and the commons: An investigation of complementary currencies and their ethical implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 160, 277–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monbiot, G. (1994). The tragedy of enclosure. Scientific American, 270(1), 159–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, S. C., Mitchell, M. N., & Nyman, E. A. (2014). Ruling the commons: Institutionalizing and privatizing the commons. International Interactions, 40(5), 711–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, T. (2009). Reconsidering the common good in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 25–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Mahony, S. (2003). Guarding the commons: How community managed projects protect their work. Research Policy, 32, 1179–1198.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1079–1106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossewaarde, M., & Reijers, W. (2017). The illusion of the digital commons:‘False consciousness’ in online alternative economies. Organization, 24(5), 609–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2000). Private and common property rights. In B. Bouckaert & G. De Geest (Eds.), Encyclopedia of law and economics: Civil law and economics (Vol. 2). Ghent, Belgium: University of Ghent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2010). Defining “the Commons”. Retrieved 10 February 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXzbcgj9F54

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, C. (2008). Digital art/public art: governance and agency in the networked commons. In C. Sommerer, L. C. Jain, & L. Mignonneau (Eds.), The art and science of interface and interaction design (pp. 163–185). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M. (2003). Emerging strategies against poverty: The road less traveled. Journal of Management Inquiry, 12(2), 155–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peredo, A. M., Haugh, H. M., & McLean, M. (2018). Common property: Uncommon forms of prosocial organizing. Journal of Business Venturing, 33(5), 591–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Périlleux, A., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Understanding cooperative finance as a new common. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 88(2), 155–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, K. (1944). The great transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, M. (2016). Common property redux. UBCL Rev, 49, 563–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. (2002). Common property, regulatory property and environmental protection: comparing community-based management to tradable environmental allowances. In E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. U. Weber (Eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 233–261). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueck, D. (2014). Commons, enclosure, and resistance in Kahnawá: Ke mohawk territory, 1850–1900. Canadian Historical Review, 95(3), 352–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge, C. F., & Defrancesco, E. (2006). Exclusion, inclusion, and enclosure: Historical commons and modern intellectual property. World Development, 34(10), 1713–1727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharper, S. B., & Cunningham, H. (2006). The genetic commons: Resisting the neo-liberal enclosure of life. Social Analysis, 50(3), 195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, E., & Ostrom, E. (1992). Property rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Economics, 68, 249–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, A. (1955). The fishery: The objectives of sole ownership. Journal of Political Economy, 63(2), 116–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sened, I., & Riker, W. H. (1996). Common property and private property: The case of air slots. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 8(4), 427–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sevilla-Buitrago, A. (2015). Capitalist formations of enclosure: Space and the extinction of the commons. Antipode, 47(4), 999–1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V., & Holla-Bhar, R. (1993). Intellectual piracy & the neem patents: The neem campaign. Dehradun, India: Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Natural Resource Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Short, C. (2008). The traditional commons of England and Wales in the twenty-first century: Meeting new and old challenges. International Journal of the Commons, 2(2), 192–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 211–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A. J. G., Hartman, E. M., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). Guest editors’ introduction: Reviving tradition: Virtue and the common good in business and management. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 207–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, J. (2010). Exploitation and sweatshop labor: Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 187–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1994). The corporation as community: A reply to Ed Hartman. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 271–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standing, G. (2019). Plunder of the commons: A manifesto for sharing public wealth. London: Pelican.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steed, B. C., & Fischer, B. C. (2007). Street trees—are they a misunderstood common-pool resource? Proceedings from Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Fall Colloquium, Bloomington, Indiana.

  • Sterckx, S., & Cockbain, J. (2016). The ethics of patenting in genetics: A second enclosure of the commons. In B. Prainsack, S. Schicktanz, & G. Werner-Felmayer (Eds.), Genetics as social practice: Transdisciplinary views on science and culture (pp. 145–160). London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tedmanson, D., Essers, C., Dey, P., & Verduyn, K. (2015). An uncommon wealth. Transforming the commons with purpose, for people and not for profit! Journal of Management Inquiry, 24(4), 439–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triggle, D. J. (2004). Patenting the sun: Enclosing the scientific commons and transforming the university—ethical concerns. Drug Development Research, 63(3), 139–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Laerhoven, F., & Ostrom, E. (2007). Traditions and trends in the study of the commons. International Journal of the Commons, 1, 3–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Laerhoven, F., Schoon, M., & Villamayor-Tomas, S. (2020). Celebrating the 30th anniversary of ostrom’s Governing the commons: Traditions and trends in the study of the commons, revisited. International Journal of the Commons, 14(1), 208–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Joireman, J., Parks, C. D., & Van Dijk, E. (2013). The psychology of social dilemmas: A review. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(2), 125–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. (1989). Village republics: Economic conditions for collective action in South India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteman, G., Walker, B., & Perego, P. (2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 307–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, T. (1987). Common land. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2014). The practice of responsible investment principles in large-scale agricultural investments. Implications for corporate performance and impact on local communities. World Bank Report Number 86175-GLB. Washington: World Bank.

  • Yue, L. Q., & Ingram, P. (2012). Industry self-regulation as a solution to the reputation commons problem: The case of the New York clearing house association. In M. L. Barnett & T. G. Pollock (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 278–296). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwolinski, M. (2007). Sweatshops, choice, and exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(4), 689–727.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant No. 603-2007-0008) and Leverhulme Trust (Grant No. 218-443). We thank Murdith McLean for the revision of previous drafts as well as Arno Kourula and the anonymous reviewer for the comments they provided of this editorial essay. Part of the special Issue was developed while Camille Meyer was a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Social and Sustainable Innovation (CSSI) at the Peter B. Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria, Canada. CSSI receives funding from Newmont Goldcorp Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Political Ecology, School of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3060 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada

    Ana María Peredo

  2. Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AG, UK

    Helen M. Haugh

  3. Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Av. F.D. Roosevelt, 42, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Marek Hudon

  4. Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town, 9 Portswood Rd, Victoria & Alfred Waterfront, Cape Town, 8002, South Africa

    Camille Meyer

Authors
  1. Ana María Peredo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen M. Haugh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marek Hudon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Camille Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana María Peredo.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peredo, A.M., Haugh, H.M., Hudon, M. et al. Mapping Concepts and Issues in the Ethics of the Commons: Introduction to the Special Issue. J Bus Ethics 166, 659–672 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04584-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04584-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation