China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Introduction
Published in Nakazawa Takashi, Waste and Distributive Justice in Asia, 2018
Distributive justice is one of the most crucial aspects of the disputes over LULUs. Distributive justice is concerned with fairness in the allocation of costs and benefits. Locally unwanted facilities impose concentrated burdens on neighbouring communities, while benefits from them are widely dispersed over the society. This inherent imbalance between costs and benefits is one of the reasons why the siting of locally unwanted facilities causes the feeling of unfairness and ignites intense local opposition. In addition, these facilities are not equally distributed among communities. Some communities shoulder a disproportionate number of noxious facilities while others host fewer or none. The studies in environmental justice have pointed out that noxious facilities are concentrated disproportionately in minority communities (Bullard, 1990; United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice, 1987). This inequitable distribution of LULUs often gives rise to demands to redress unfairness.
Exogenous vs. Endogenous Governance in Innovation Communities
Published in Cornelius Herstatt, Daniel Ehls, Open Source Innovation – The Phenomenon, Participant's Behavior, Business Implications, 2015
Niclas Störmer, Cornelius Herstatt
In particular crucial to the adherence of rules is whether they are perceived as legitimate (Tyler 2005). Within the context of governance system, legitimacy results in higher compliance of rules and therefore enduring stability (Walker et al. 1986). Thus, legitimacy is a prerequisite to build functional governance systems and therefore stable business institutions and OCI communities. This raises the question under what circumstances a rule normative system is perceived as legitimate. Put differently, how can one achieve legitimacy when designing governance rules and structures? One central dimension that influences the perception of legitimacy is justice (Tyler 2006). Consequently, the construct of justice, especially in organizations, has been of great interest to researchers within the last decades.2 Within the literature, justice is viewed as multi-dimensional, differentiating between distributive justice, interpersonal justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice is fostered by outcomes and focuses on people's reaction to unfair allocation of rewards or resources (Greenberg 1987). Procedural justice centers the process by which the outcome is reached. Leventhal defines procedural justice as follows:3 “The concept of procedural fairness refers to an individual´s perception of the fairness of procedural components of the social system that regulate the allocative process” (Leventhal 1980, p. 35).
Organizational justice: A literature review and managerial implications for future research
Published in Indira Rachmawati, Ratih Hendayani, Managing Learning Organization in Industry 4.0, 2020
In addition, the authors have tried to explain the managerial implications that can be used as reference for an organization in implementing organizational justice in the future in order to increase employee job satisfaction and commitment, which will later have an impact on increasing the full contribution to achieve company goals, including: Distributive justice can be applied in the form of providing incentives, additional benefits, and bonuses to employees as needed, ensuring equitable distribution of workloads and tasks, standardization of salary, and communication systems that can support the distribution. In addition, the distribution system adopted by the company must be based on the contribution that each employee has made to the company.Procedural justice can be carried out by showing consistency, lack of biased behavior, accuracy in decision-making, ethical behavior between management and employees, transparency of reports in each department so as to support the goals and missions of the company. In addition, companies need to involve each member of the organization in the decision-making process. Human resource managers need to ensure that the procedures implemented meet official standards that guarantee that the implementation of decisions is based on objective information, facilitate employees who want to provide advice and responses to feel included in decision-making, provide opportunities for employees to reconsider and change a decision, and determine punishments for unethical acts.Interactional justice can be applied by showing respect and dignity and sharing relevant information between company and employees, maintaining a work environment that reflects mutual respect, treating employees well, improving communication skills through managerial training to enable effective communication, and evaluating and establishing an objective interview system for the promotion of employees.
How do institutional forces affect firm agility through organisational justice? Differences between Chinese and foreign firms in China
Published in Production Planning & Control, 2023
Mengying Feng, Wantao Yu, Roberto Chavez, Trevor Cadden, Chee Yew Wong
Distributive justice is drawn from equity theory, which posits that contributions, rewards, and outcomes between trading partners should be equally distributed (i.e. equity in the allocation of effort and reward) (Adams 1965). Following Narasimhan, Narayanan, and Srinivasan (2013, 237) work, we define distributive justice as ‘the fairness of rewards in the relationship based on the effort expended’. Distributive justice promotes trust and thus reduces the possibility of opportunistic behaviour between partners (Luo 2007). If the distribution of rewards, the ratio of outcomes to inputs is favourable, and the level of partnership commitment increases, irrespective of the level of competitiveness and uncertainty in the environment (Narasimhan, Narayanan, and Srinivasan 2013; Walker and Pettigrew 1984).
Designing fair AI for managing employees in organizations: a review, critique, and design agenda
Published in Human–Computer Interaction, 2020
Lionel P. Robert, Casey Pierce, Liz Marquis, Sangmi Kim, Rasha Alahmad
In the organizational justice literature, distributive justice is often assessed either by comparing an individual’s inputs to their outputs (i.e., within individuals) or by comparing an individual’s outcomes to others’ outcomes (i.e., between individuals or groups). In our review of the AI fairness literature, we found that distributive fairness was overwhelmingly measured by comparing outcomes across people rather within the individual (e.g., Glymour & Herington, 2019; Grgić-Hlača et al., 2018; Heidari & Krause, 2018). For example, Heidari and Krause (2018) argued that fairness should be measured by determining whether similar individuals should be assigned similar outcomes by the algorithm. This focus on assessing fairness among individuals or groups might be from the AI fairness literature’s tendency to measure distributed fairness from the outside (i.e., detecting disparate impact of outcomes via a mathematically validated algorithm or legal standard) rather than from the perspective of the impacted individual.
Principles of Green Bioethics
Published in The New Bioethics, 2020
Richie then provides an outline of how the principles of green bioethics might work in practice. The theoretical argument for each of these principles is clear enough, but only when considered within a consensus that environmental impact is not just one factor among many, but the most critical ethical challenge facing global society. So, distributive justice means in this framework allocation of medical resources that are basic for human health rather than what she defines as special interest access which are not, according to her judgment, required for human health needs to be met. Distributive justice is the socially just distribution of goods between people. The second principle of resource conservation does not seem to add any practical directives beyond the first principle of distributive justice. Her third principle, simplicity, aims for a reduction in dependence on complex medical intervention that is unnecessary, while the fourth principle, economics, resists intervention done purely for profit rather than meeting genuine health care needs.