Editorial

Citation

Kirkbride, J. and Howells, G. (2008), "Editorial", International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 50 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijlma.2008.01050aaa.001

Editorial

We are excited to begin this new calendar year with contributions that continue to support a comparative and contextual approach to the understanding of regulatory issues in the development of commercial organisations and organisational practice.

Two of the papers, one from Dr Middlemiss and another from Professor Letza et al. develop ideas shared and debated at leading academic conferences. Dr Middlemiss provides a detailed analysis of the current position of the legal recognition, or otherwise, and response to the complex issues of sexual favouritism in the workplace. The study compares the judicial and legislative approaches of the UK with the USA, noting that the latter is far more advanced in promoting a legal recognition and balance of the tensions and the development of rights in this area: the UK approach is rather piecemeal offering inadequate "solutions" through inappropriate actions for unfair or constructive dismissal claims, or ancillary claims in statutory torts under sex discrimination legislation. Dr Middlemiss skilfully exposes the inadequacies of the current system and articulates a powerful policy plea, with recommendations, that would substantially contribute to improving the UK position. Dr Middlemiss first presented these ideas at the Society of Legal Scholar's Conference 2007 at the University of Durham, UK.

In the second article, Professor Letza et al. present a challenge to scholars and law makers to re-examine the theoretical base and common assumptions behind the current controls on corporate governance. The suggestion is that the current dualistic model of shareholder vs stakeholder approach is misplaced and fails to reflect corporate practice. Just as writers such as Zingales are beginning to challenge the theory of the firm, Letza et al. suggest that such changes should cause the theoretical basis of corporate governance legislation to be similarly challenged. Through a detailed consideration of the changing nature of the firm, it is suggested that, both in theory and practice, it can be observed that there is developing evidence of a dualistic approach to the foundations of corporate governance: that dualistic approach must replace the current stakeholder – shareholder dichotomy. The ideas in this paper were first presented at the British Academy of Management 2007 Conference, at the University of Warwick, UK.

The tensions created by the western, market-driven, influences on global trade and investment are considered in the context of HR developments and reform in Korea, in the study presented by Lilian Miles. This interesting study compares the western approaches to the Confucian principles and traces the impact on the foundations of Korean HR practices; providing both an interesting insight into those principles and how they are being eroded, or at least challenged, as Korea seeks to appease external trade and investment partners. It is suggested that the threat to society and to the firm is an unwanted consequence of the lack of a diversity appreciation in labour law development and HR practice.

Needless to state that we hope you find these contributions extend current knowledge and encourage further debate and challenge.

Finally, the observant will have noticed the slight but significant change in the presentation of the title to this Journal. In order to better reflect the comparative and contextual approach of the Journal and contributions, the title of International Journal of Law and Management has been adopted. Reference to the sub-title of Managerial Law is retained in order to confirm and build upon the traditions of the Journal. We hope you welcome this change.

James Kirkbride and Geraint Howells