Free riding involves benefiting from common resources or services while avoiding contributing to their production and maintenance. Few studies have adequately investigated the propensity to overestimate the prevalence of free riding. This is a significant omission, as exaggeration of the phenomenon is often used to justify control and coercion systems. To address this gap, we investigate how the common good approach may mitigate the flaws of a system excessively focused on free-riding risk. In this conceptual paper featuring illustrative vignettes, we (...) argue that the common good perspective is realistic and effective in preventing this excessive attention by promoting trust as an unconditional gift and a response to vulnerability. We discuss the common good perspective’s originality over the dominant approaches and propose a set of ethical and managerial recommendations that may be the best protection against this excessive focus and maybe even against free riding itself. (shrink)

The literature on organizational ethics has paved the way for a situated and intersubjective understanding of ethics through caring practices. In this article, we try to extend this perspective by looking beyond the interactions of caregivers among themselves or with care seekers to reveal ethics as the ongoing collective accomplishment of a variety of actors. We do so by mobilizing Strauss’s theoretical perspective of articulation work in the context of healthcare. Based on an ethnography, we show how actors of care (...) (e.g., nurses, caregivers, or doctors) operate within care arrangements that need to be frequently rearticulated to face ethical threats and protect their patients’ well-being. We distinguish three types of rearticulation corresponding to different degrees of rearticulation, individual actor stance, and specific ways of working things out. We discuss their implications for the maintenance of organizational ethics. (shrink)

In this article, we seek to explore the different normative claims made around commons organizing and how the advent of the digital commons introduces new ethical questions. We do so by unpacking and categorizing the specific ethical dimensions that differentiate the commons from other forms of organizing and by discussing them in the light of debates around the governance of participative organizations, the cornerstone of commons organizing (Ostrom in Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University (...) Press, Cambridge, 1990). Rather than contesting commons organizing or endorsing it blindly, our goal is to critically reflect on its deontological and instrumental assumptions, and analyze the arguments upholding that it possesses ethical qualities that render it fairer, more equitable and sustainable than other centralized or hierarchical models—as well as any forms of privatization. We conclude by assessing the definitional dislocation of the digital commons where, unlike traditional commons, extractability can be endless and generate unintended consequences such as commodification or alienation. Taking stock of recent debates around the digital commons, we open the debate for future possible research avenues on normative claims, particularly under rapidly changing technological conditions. (shrink)