individuals, communities, organizations and nations together or driving them apart.

The temptation to exploit religious difference for self-preservation is ever present.

Encouragement to express religious opinions openly may thus pose a risk of exacerbating
such tensions. Encouragement to more open acknowledgement and expression of religious
difference may bring tension and discrimination against those who are not like us within
and among places of employment. Paradoxically perhaps, we advocate for greater
engagement with religious diversity as a source of value, rather than a driver of divisions.
Managers must ensure such value is realized. Navigating religious tensions in organizational
contexts requires a personal
and institutional commitment to reflection on self and world that is broader than the
pragmatic training to guide day-to-day decisions typically associated with diversity
management. The sanction of diverse dress codes or the display of religious icons, the
designation of times and places to pray, the observance of diverse religious holy days and so
on are important pragmatic institutional responses to a respect for religious pluralism. These
responses alone, however, do not assure organizational stability when workplace, community,
or world tensions generated by events well outside of a managers control may be attributed
religious significance and reverberate in the workplace. While behavioral tolerance is
essential, it cannot easily attend to the deeper tensions that lie behind the calls for diverse
not uniform management of all staff. Just and fruitful engagement with this commitment to
respect diversity in all its fluid forms calls for spiritual wisdom. To take leadership for such
commitment is something Chaston and Lips-Wiersma (2015) refer to as a double edged
sword an evocative metaphor. Yet, we argue, there are many steps towards justice that may
be generated from this leadership, dangerous as it may be.
The issues of justice, peace, and environmental degradation generated by the
intensification of globalization cannot help but spill into specific organizational life. There is
an urgent need for cross-disciplinary education of managers, be they religiously motivated or
not, with a greater attention to wisdom traditions, ethics, and global thinking. In this paper,
we therefore invite managers and those who study and educate them to the broadest of
reflection on themselves and their professions. We thus provide a discussion starter in which
we posit that open attention to religious diversity can be a source of value rather than division
in an increasingly globalized context. For this to be so, however, managers must demonstrate
critical self-reflection and wisdom to ensure such value is realized in the face of personally
held contrasting religious or secular affiliation. We call this wisdom spiritual wisdom, a
wisdom we believe is to be found in every known religion. It is a wisdom deeply embedded
in many ancient and modern world views. Malloch (2015) refers to this as a practical wisdom
that seeks to construct a bridge between the world of management and the spiritual
philosophical traditions on a basis of mutual appreciation instead of mutual suspicion. The
spill-over of the maturing wisdom of managers and their educators into broader communities
could make a significant contribution to the stability of organizational life and to the progress
of forms of justice that underpin such stability at the local and cumulatively at the global
level. But what of the apparent contradictions within and among such religions and world
views? We posit that closer attention to the contradictions in the prevailing form of
globalization may encourage transformations of associated systemic injustice, the restorations
of damaged environments, and the achievement of global peace. Our attention in this paper is
on the engagement of people-of-faith with these contradictions and their transformative
potential. We think of people-offaith as those who may have an explicitly religious affiliation
or not. We think of people-of-faith as those who believe in a spiritual dynamic to human life
that may be called upon to address the tensions and injustices generated by human
decision devoid of spiritual consideration. With Sacks (2003), we posit the potential of
people-of-faith to tackle such contradictions can only be fulfilled in and through

conversations which entail the capacity to recognize, value, and not fear difference. The
engagement of people-of-faith in organizations that instantiate the trajectory of globalization
is thus examined in the light of concerns about human and planetary well-being, that is in part
in the realms of influence of individual managers and their educators. We encourage
managers and those who study and who educate them to join with leaders among people-offaith, with global bodies such as the United Nations, and with the emergence of RHE in
organizational studies for their various contributions to conversations that seek to articulate
spiritual wisdom through valued diversity of expression. We are keen to participate in
conversations about the potential of forms of spirituality that may redirect the current
trajectory of globalization towards human and planetary well-being because with many
philosophers, artists, theologians, technical experts, and social activists of diverse faiths, we
are of the view that the future of humanity is not so much to be predicted as to be created. We
are motivated by the potential of these conversations to contribute to the confluence of faith,
hope, and love in the critical examination and practice of corporate responsibility (CR) and
their contribution to the achievement of universal justice, environmental restoration, and
global peace. In this paper, we explore the influence people-of-faith may have in this creation
specifically in the realms of CR where issues of values, faith, ethics, and responsibility
meet in board rooms, across media, finance, legal and administrative departments, and on
factory floors of all kinds.
This is a conceptual essay. We review contrasting views about the current trajectory of
globalization. We are drawn to the work of Seo and Creed (2002) who provide a framework
for recognizing and engaging with deeply embedded differences, contradictions, and
paradoxes, not so as to collapse such differences into an unrealistic and false universal order,
but to work from that point towards transformations of injustice, the restorations of damaged
environments, and the achievement of global peace. Respect for difference and humility in
the face of so much dangerous self-righteousness must be the starting point in our exploration
and expressions of faith, hope, and love.
The trajectory of globalization: universal development or empire building?
Advocates for the prevailing form of corporate-led globalization such as the
Organization for Economic and Development, Bhagwati (2004), Wolf (2004), Krueger
(2012), and Bhagwati and Panagariya (2013) argue that capitalist markets are the most
effective and just system for the exchange of goods and services available to humanity. The
corporate form is seen as its most efficient vehicle. Diverse advocates for this trajectory of
global development posit that economic growth translates into wealth that will be invested for
more growth and the fruits of this growth will trickle through to those who deserve or need it.
Thus, economic growth is seen as necessary for the assurance of national and individual
wealth and well-being. A more critical perspective suggests that wherever this form of
development is present, too many people and the environment are suffering. Prominent
authors who express such concerns include Korten (2001, 2010, 2015), Stiglitz (2002, 2010,
2012), Chang (2008), Branson (2011), and Maxton (2011).
Using the most developed capitalist/democratic jurisdictions as his focus, Stiglitz
(2012) claims that where democratic values are held dear, the intensification of economic
globalization presents a paradox. He notes that while this economic system is extremely
beneficial to some, its benefits do not reach two-thirds of the worlds population. Maxton
(2011) draws attention to the paradoxical positioning of large corporations as both a creative
and destructive force in this global trajectory. On the creative side, rapid technological
advances enable people to speak to each other across the world often for free, to modify the
plants and animals to suit the needs and interests of people, and to generate power by fusing
the foci of atoms. In terms of education and social development, more people on the planet
have achieved basic levels of literacy, average life expectancy has never been greater, and

levels of wealth have never been higher. Of course there are billions who are still extremely
poor, but as Maxton notes, advocates for this form of development attribute to the advance of
capitalism the prospect that even for these people, their futures are assumed to be better than
at any other time in history. Contrary to these widely held optimistic beliefs, Maxton cautions
that the world may rather be entering into a new Dark Age. In their Geneva report on the
world economy, Buttiglione et al. (2014) provide a credible depiction of such a dark age. The
total burden of world debt, excluding the financial sector, has risen from 180% of
global output in 2008 to 212% in 2013. This, they warn, poses an alarming threat for an
enormous financial crisis with all its social impacts.
Critics of the contemporary trajectory of globalization argue that many corporations
have more power to influence the global situation than the government of individual
countries. A study on the relationships between 37 million companies and investors
worldwide done by Vitali et al. (2011) found that 147 corporations control 40% of world
wealth. Their investment and divestment decisions may moderate local values and establish
patterns of work and community life that may be harmful to local citizens, yet be of
insufficient interests to local or distant political leaders. For Pilger (2003), this trajectory is a
form of empire building with dangerous consequences, a view shared by Chomsky and
Herman (1979, 2003, 2006), George (2010), Chomsky and Barsamian (2011, 2013) and
others. Pilger demonstrates how multinational corporations and governments urged on by
wide-reaching development logic such as emanating from the International Monetary Fund,
the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization, have a profound influence on the lives of
millions of people throughout the world. Their embedded institutional logics support a form
of empire building that enriches a minority, serves privileged elite, provides uneven levels of
sustenance and deprivation across time and space for the majority, and tolerates death and
destruction as necessary for the protection of the system. Simple equalization of material
benefits, however, holds its own dangers if it means universally matching current levels of
Western consumerism. Korten (2010) warns that increased global consumerism on a Western
scale will have catastrophic social and environmental consequences. Based on the work of
authors such as Vitali et al., Pilger, Chomsky and others, we depict the system that serves this
corporate form of global development, privileging the few at the expense of the many, as a
form of empire building. All empires have bloodied borders. All empires generate tensions as
the privileged enjoy benefits denied others. The tensions associated with empire building of
any era may be rooted in many kinds of justification. The grievances generated among the
dispossessed and marginalized lead to resistance and sometimes violence. The claims to
righteousness in contemporary empire building by the West are cloaked in a neutral-sounding
process of development or globalization. The West is a large power and its faith in the
superiority of its belief systems with the implied notion that others will and must follow suit
is suggestive of hegemonic tendencies that may exacerbate not diminish global tension.
Religion can be made the medium in which such tensions are expressed and through which
they are healed. At the same time as global economic disparities fuel political and social
unrest, the environment is under great pressure. Species are being killed at unprecedented
rates. Rainforests are being destroyed. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions
continue to rise. Together, these dynamics contribute to what most scientists agree as a
dangerous warming of the planet with dire and radically uneven social consequences further
eroding national, regional, and individual security and well-being. Public concern over such
danger is amplifying. In September 2014, in more than 2000 locations worldwide, millions of
climate change protesters demonstrated on the streets about the inability of the international
organizations and the worlds leaders to take action on climate change.1 During her closing
remarks at the Climate Summit New York in September 2014, Graca Marchel2 declared that
the pledges and actions taken by the world leaders are not sufficient to combat the rising

magnitude of the climate challenges. She urges every representative to be bolder and to put
more effort into reversing climate change.3 For those who believe the dominance of the
corporate form is inevitable, their potential for good must be harnessed. For those who
believe this faith is misplaced and cannot be controlled through established democratic
dynamics, new forms of human organization need to be invented. People-of-faith have
perspectives to contribute and are amplifying their intentions to do so. Religious guidance to
action, however, has a dark history to which secularization was deemed an enlightening
remedy. Secularization, sometimes facilitated by war, sometimes by appeals to democracy,
and often expressed through the rhetoric of emancipation through economic growth, has been
seen by some as a way to defuse the impact of religious differences by positing a market free
to all as the conduit for all relationships.
A secular market is facilitated by the technical tasks of maximizing profit through
trade and exchange. The rewards for engagement are purportedly determined by merit, skill,
and astute investment choices. Race, gender, and religion should not enter as characteristics
affecting the functioning of the system but it so often does. Secularization opened in
principle the possibility of global integration of trade and exchange regardless of deeply held
differences in cultural, political, or religious orientation but so often does not. Leaving
leadership to an alliance of functionally orientated governments focused on economic growth
and increasingly in the service of corporate interests, however, may come at the cost of much
collateral damage. The ordinary people of Alaska, Alberta, Greece, Italy, Iraq, Spain, Syria,
rainforest and deserts, and so many coveted regions of the world can testify to such
outcomes. Military and economic pressures drive decisions in the protection of capital and
opportunism driven by supposedly religiously driven interests now has the world on tenderhooks and the remedy is articulated by the New York Times. In a polarized region and a
complicated world, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria presents a unifying threat to a broad
array of countries, including the United States. Whats needed to confront its nihilistic vision
and genocidal agenda is a global coalition using political, humanitarian, economic, law
enforcement, and intelligence tools to support military force.4 Tensions are mounting
globally. That the fate of ordinary people may be selectively invoked in times of selfprotective military or economic wars or ignored in times of economic downturn as victims of
not-our-war or not-our-people is antithetical to an ethical life. An ethical life, however,
does not necessarily require religion in a secular world. What then might people-of-faith
bring to the negotiation of our collective future if religion is not to be the vehicle for
fundamentalist impositions of any kind?
[De] Secularization in the trajectory of globalization
Views of religion and religious differences as divisive and inflammatory and thus to
be kept from the realms of trade and exchange are challenged by those who believe religious
values can and must contribute to the transformation of the degradations that are systemically
generated. Such religious influence is enhanced not diminished by its respect for religious
diversity, argues Sacks (2003). To follow this line of reasoning invites enquirers to hold an
ethical gaze on the prevailing forms of human organization generally referred to as
globalization, and that which we name in this paper more specifically as corporate capitalism,
the new empire. In the secularization of The West, religiously inspired values have not been
erased from Western consciousness. They have, however, been bifurcated and relegated to
separate realms of expression at times pressed under cover, ignored, or disparaged. The
formal re-emergence of the consideration of religion and broader notions of spirituality in the
organizational disciplines, however, is evidenced in the number and variety of conferences,
journals, and books so focused. The Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion is
among them. This reintegration of religion into the trajectory of globalization requires
ongoing critical attention. Religion is deeply implicated in the history and future of humanity.

That the now corporate-led form of global development must have spiritual attention is
argued by religious leaders from many faiths Jonathan Sacks (Sacks 2003, p. 2), the Dalai
Lama5 and Pope Francis6 among them. While these religious leaders hold diverse views
about the merits of globalization as a necessary form of development, they agree that we
cannot concern ourselves only with questions of how much profit will we make, how can we
minimize our cost, or how we can protect our investment from claims of harm that currently
compose the favored directives for global development. Rather, questions and concerns
should be focused on the consequences of our ways of organizing our humanity and our
relationship with Earth. In the eyes of many people, however, religion has a suspect record.
Religion is seen by some as deeply implicated in the formation, imposition, and policing of a
forced sense of common identity through the promulgation of ideas about the validity of a
specific belief system to be privileged over all other ideas.
Disruption to once-secure identities opens the way to those with religious convictions
to take control through movements that Huntington labels as fundamentalist (1993, p. 26).7
The tension between those who have religious convictions with regard to the right not to
serve homosexual people, for example, has taken a particularly explicit turn in the United
States8 and a very bloody turn in parts of Africa.9 Within the Anglican Church, issues
pertaining to homosexuality and to female leadership are among the current conflicts dividing
the Church in painful ways at the tables of governance, to the management of parishes, and
into the homes and workplaces of parishioners. A united stand on environmental
responsibilities is also far from universal across or within religious or cultural expressions.
The origins of these examples of contemporary conflict within and among religions may go
back generations and may be based on real or perceived grievances or unresolved doctrinal
differences. Their flare-ups in agitation or violence may be rooted in ancient history and may
be trigged by some contemporary irritant. It may be that a difference that for generations has
been generally accepted or tolerated is needled into overt conflict by interests from within or
without by a group that stand to gain from such conflict. They play out their depth in the dayto-day relationships in our places of work where managers are mandated to manage in
global and local circumstances for which spiritual wisdom is as much a requirement as are
technical and legal capacities. This wisdom entails the subtle ways we other those who are
not like us on large and small canvasses of consciousness on large or small clashes of
expressions of civilization.
The clash of civilizations happens at two levels, argues Huntington (1993, p. 29). On a
macro level, nation-states may compete on military and economic grounds to control
international institutions and other nations to promote their own political and religious
beliefs. A presumed truth may be used to distinguish true believers from the other. The
other might be tolerated, ignored, or stigmatized. The other may be deemed infidels in
need of conversion,
assimilation, exclusion, or destruction. Inhumanity, atrocities, and violence are not the
sole domain of any specific interest group. Whole civilizations have been formed around the
identification, discipline, or elimination of the other. Huntington (1993) suggests that
increasing interaction between people of different civilizations may enhance the awareness of
people to the particular attributes and values of the civilization they identify with. Such
growing consciousness may also amplify attention to differences and strengthen allegiance to
their own ways of being. It may exacerbate tensions between those who appear to hold a
different faith. It may stimulate hatred by a reach into history to name real or perceived
grievances associated with the rise and fall of selective interests. In the tensions of
intensification of globalization, religion may not be the only or even necessary roots of trends
to violence. The religious elements threaded through these tensions can, however, be
inflamed to provide a cover and powerful motivator for those seeking to serve specific

interests. Religion, as a guide to action and a motivator of populations, can be markedly

different in the hands of the power-hungry or the virtuous. Just who is friend or foe is not
always easy to detect. Unattended clashes between friend and foe can be dangerous. And so it
is with civilizations the collective them and us the risks of violent clashes and the hopes
for peaceful convergence are in human hands. On micro level, the clash of civilizations
occurs between groups that border one another on cultural fault lines (p. 29). These fault
lines may occur due to contrasting national identities or religious beliefs. These fault lines can
be seen in Arab nationalist movements, in Islamic Fundamentalist clashes with other-faith
communities as between the Sunni and Shiite, and in the cleansing of the Rohingya
Muslims minority in the Rakhine State by Buddhist and Myanmar authorities.10 Significant
visible conflicts exist between Hindus and Muslims, between Chinese and Buddhist Tibetans,
and between Jews and Muslims. Within loosely grouped Christian world views, the tensions
between Catholics and Protestants have reached many violent expressions over the Raising
and maintaining consciousness of ones own complicity in the subtle discipline of another
requires significant self-awareness and moral fortitude. How well do we educate for this in
the seemingly more mundane theaters of education and the places of normalized trade and
exchange? Merely assuming the equal employment opportunity gospels and an ideology of
meritocracy promulgated by western liberalism are the remedy for mal-distribution of
lifesustaining opportunities is to ignore the violence of global strategic realignment of
interests, corporate friendly legislatures, and general ignorance of these among populations,
communities and individuals who are pressed to compete against each other for survival.
The imposition of Western-style liberalism cloaked in a rhetoric of emancipation and
democratic values may be seen as a form of empire expansion by critics from within and
without. This form of expansionism as any empire building requires cadres of
domesticated functionaries who will play their small but instrumental part in a script written
to support selective interests. People-of-faith and people of democratic persuasions have the
capacity to rewrite such a script a new script infused with spiritual wisdom based on respect
for all diversities including religious diversity. However, the aspiration to be number one, a
winner, a master of control in ones own life or in the lives of others is very powerful be
that as individuals, nations, or trading blocks. This aspiration is visibly exhibited by some
powerful leaders and subtly implied by countless of functionaries in state or corporate
service, and in the day-to-day management of organizations of all kinds. Despite the rhetoric
of universal emancipation and the espoused values of democratic values, for example,
the USA as harbinger of Western liberalism will do its best to stay dominant. Nowhere was
this made as explicit as in Obamas promise: We will be Number One Again11 a
dangerous endorsement of an American-flavored impetus of globalization that reverberates
through the industrial model of development few can escape. People-of-faith are threaded
through every aspects of this narration of globalization both in the reinforcement of and
challenge to Western dominance, its reconceptualization, and its re-narration. Might the
categories of being same and other need radical overhaul from the various forms of
tribalism, sectarianism, national, and regional affinities, to categories of people serving love
above all else no matter what race, class, or religion they are associated with? Might there
be a universal that could channel difference to peace and justice? Huston Smiths study of
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Hinduism suggest that while
various religions differ in terms of their language, customs, and traditions, beyond their
differences the goals of each religion are the same. The values shared by all people-of-faith,
writes Smith (1958), are to reach God with wholehearted devotion. Drawing from her
exploration on comparative religions and religions in the contemporary world, Armstrong
(1993, 2006) concludes that even though each religion may have its unique insights, all share
the same ideals of compassion, respect, and universal concern for others elements of what

all would call love. According to Ghazi (2010), Islam and Christianity share the
commandments of the supreme importance of loving God and loving ones neighbor. Built on
this common ground, people of such faith everywhere are bound together by a shared
acceptance of the command to love God and each other. Believers are urged to respect the
spiritual beliefs of others in the interest of peace, justice, love, and social harmony. Thus,
argue those with a high tolerance for religious diversity, diverse spiritual practices can be
called upon to unite the worlds peoples, despite differences in religious beliefs. Huntingtons
expressed concern about the clash of civilizations provides a rich opening of conversations
about the value of differences and of commonalities in an ecology for just human being. It
requires a rethinking of the de-animated world in which human beings are treated as
instrumental functionaries in a mechanistic world geared for a prioritization of economic
goals that serve an elite at the cost of the many and put the well-being of Earth under duress.
The ecology of being
The world is not a single machine. It is a complex interactive ecology in which
diversity is of the essence. Any proposed reduction of that diversity through the many
forms of fundamentalism that exists today market, scientific, or religious would result in
the diminution of the rich texture of our shared life, a potentially narrowing of the horizons of
possibility. (Sacks 2003, p. 22) In The Dignity of Difference (2003, p. 8), Chief Jewish Rabbi
Lord Johnathan Sacks reflects on his participation in the first anniversary commemoration at
Ground Zero of the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He,
along with many religious leaders, seeks a genesis of hope to avoid what Huntington predicts
could be ever more violent clashing of civilizations. Two decades on from Huntingtons
predictions, current events attributed to religious conflict stretch across several continents and
are inextricably entwined with spiritual, economic, political, environmental, and
humanitarian interests of human beings globally. Corporate leaders, managers, employees,
and citizens of every region of a world with porous national borders are implicated in the
directions of global affairs and among them, people-of-faith. The West argues Sacks (2014)
has misread the twenty-first century. This is not an age of secular ideologies. It is an era of
de-secularization. Our greatest challenge is not political or economic or military. It is in the
deepest sense spiritual.12 But tensions are running high in this regard. Diverse
commentators variously use religious rhetoric in justifications for crimes and counter crimes,
expressions of righteous outrage, and appeals to human decency to halt the atrocities,
exploitations, and injustices. Much such religious posturing, however, can be threaded to
issues of teritorial, political, or resource control (Khouri 2014) or attempted self-preservation
in the face of intensifying competition for the means of life. Religiously driven leadership
amplifying in the dynamics of globalization cannot help but spill over into the everyday
expression of religious affiliation in local communities including our places of employment
be that a factory, a minefield, or a corner store. All require management. Seemingly distant
global conflicts cannot be divorced from local well-being. Even before the acute situations,
given religious expression now before us globally, concerns with the potential effects of
spiritual and religion commitments have made their way to the political podium, into the
corporate boardroom, and into management education. From the dislocation of indigenous
peoples to the employment of gay and transgendered people, diverse faithbased positions
motivate many people sometimes to contradictory action. The potential of spiritual or
religious leadership is increasingly called on to contribute to practical concerns and moral
responsibilities of corporations in the face of conflicts attributed to national or global
economic interests, political instability, religious or tribal animosities, seemingly intractable
poverty, politically destabilizing social disparities, and environmental destruction impacting
communities well beyond the source of the degradations. Sacks (2003) urges religious people
everywhere to respect different viewpoints and to resist marshaling behind competing claims

for religious allegiance and identity. With Sacks (2003), we posit that the potential of peopleof-faith to tackle the contradictions within and among religions can only be fulfilled in and
through conversations. Such conversations must entail the capacity to recognize and not fear
difference. To explore the possibility that there is value to be found in contradiction, we now
turn to the work of Seo and Creed (2002).
Channeling paradox and contradictions within and across religions
According to Bauman, the form of globalization that we are witnessing divides as
it unites the causes of division being identical with those which promote the uniformity of
the globe. (cited in Sacks 2003, p. 24) That an organizing system that excludes can also be
trusted to be a system that integrates is a proposition that warrants closer scrutiny. How can
this apparent paradox be tackled? We turn to institutional theory for some insights.
Institutional theory attends to the process by which structures, schemes, rules, norms, and
routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior (Scott 2005, p.
460). Different components of institutional theory explain how these social elements are
created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time. However, the central paradox of
institutional theory itself lies in how the actors embedded in institutions can engage in
rational actions against pervasive institutional beliefs when these beliefs imply the
restrictions of rational choice in existing institutional arrangements (Powell and DiMaggio
1991, Seo and Creed 2002). Religious as well as secular belief systems are similarly at risk of
closed-system thinking and are likely to convey the interests of those who are most privileged
by the institutional(ized) values andeveryday expression of religious affiliation in local
communities including our places of employment be that a factory, a minefield, or a corner
store. All require management. Seemingly distant global conflicts cannot be divorced from
local well-being.
Even before the acute situations, given religious expression now before us globally,
concerns with the potential effects of spiritual and religion commitments have made their way
to the political podium, into the corporate boardroom, and into management education. From
the dislocation of indigenous peoples to the employment of gay and transgendered people,
diverse faithbased positions motivate many people sometimes to contradictory action. The
potential of spiritual or religious leadership is increasingly called on to contribute to practical
concerns and moral responsibilities of corporations in the face of conflicts attributed to
national or global economic interests, political instability, religious or tribal animosities,
seemingly intractable poverty, politically destabilizing social disparities, and environmental
destruction impacting communities well beyond the source of the degradations. Sacks (2003)
urges religious people everywhere to respect different viewpoints and to resist marshaling
behind competing claims for religious allegiance and identity. With Sacks (2003), we posit
that the potential of people-of-faith to tackle the contradictions within and among religions
can only be fulfilled in and through conversations. Such conversations must entail the
capacity to recognize and not fear difference. To explore the possibility that there is value to
be found in contradiction, we now turn to the work of Seo and Creed (2002). Channeling
paradox and contradictions within and across religions According to Bauman, the form of
globalization that we are witnessing divides as it unites the causes of division being
identical with those which promote the uniformity of the globe. (cited in Sacks 2003, p. 24)
That an organizing system that excludes can also be trusted to be a system that integrates is a
proposition that warrants closer scrutiny. How can this apparent paradox be tackled? We turn
to institutional theory for some insights. Institutional theory attends to the process by which
structures, schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative
guidelines for social behavior (Scott 2005, p. 460). Different components of institutional
theory explain how these social elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over
space and time. However, the central paradox of institutional theory itself lies in how the

actors embedded in institutions can engage in rational actions against pervasive institutional
beliefs when these beliefs imply the restrictions of rational choice in existing institutional
arrangements (Powell and DiMaggio 1991, Seo and Creed 2002). Religious as well as secular
belief systems are similarly at risk of closed-system thinking and are likely to convey the
interests of those who are most privileged by the institutional(ized) values and everyday
taken-for granted practices of that system. Political and religious leadership are always
implicated. For Juergensmeyer (2004), there are close ties between political leadership and
religious authority. He states that in traditional societies (p. 22), religious teaching and
values provide a moral and ethical guidance which influence peoples everyday life including
states affairs. Knitter (2009) also believes that religious beliefs have always been expressed in
political attitudes and actions and political and economic actions are often justified with
religious values. Religion may be amplified to become the fundamental support of moral
authority of public life and as Sacks (2005) claims, may provide a moral framework for
society. But religious influence on public life is not without its risks. Where religious
extremists gain influence, religiously generated and justified violence and terror may
intensify (Huntington 1993). Religion may also be made the medium through which other
grievances are expressed. With Plante (2009), we are of the view, however, that many
conflicts given religious impetus may be exacerbated because many participants in the
conflict are theologically illiterate. To this extent, the increased attention given to religion in
The Academy is to be welcomed but not without caution. Locating and maintaining ones
focus on contradiction and paradox is one way to avoid the myopic thinking that harnesses
intellectual energy to the service of The Empire. Seo and Creed (2002) posit that the
contradictions that accumulate and are perceived by the social actors can be used to create
energy and strategies to introduce change. Accordingly, paradoxes and contradictions that
might be the source of conflict can be re-viewed as positive opportunities to work with
difference towards synergies for peace, justice, and environmental restoration. Religious
communities and faith-based organizations are amongst those who see potential in working
with the United Nations in the duty to care about the systemic degradation of people and
planet. In 2013, for example, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon conveyed to
the Assembly of the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Busan, Korea, that he applauds the
WCC for its work with the United Nations to advance common goals. He said that our world
today is beset by challenges that cross geographical, cultural, and religious lines. Climate
change, poverty, environmental degradation, conflict, and other threats demand a global
response by governments along with other partners, including non-governmental
organizations and religious groups. As we focus on broad global challenges, we must pay
close attention to people as key agents of change. Religious leaders can have an enormous
influence on their followers, and are well placed to help bring about a change in mindsets that
can lead to progress in society.13 Reflection on the influence of people-of-faith variously
engaged in the maintenance or disruption of this hegemonic influence is never ever been so
important. In 1994, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) and the Center UNESCO de Catalunya hosted a meeting called The
Contribution by Religions to the Culture of Peace, recognizing the important of religion in
human life. Jordans Prince Ghazi went further by initiating A Common Word in 2007 a
call to attend to the misuse of religions that causes conflict and undermines the possibility of
world peace. In June 2014, the Special Adviser to the United Nations Development Program
Administrator on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Olav Kjorven, attended an
international meeting on conservation organized by Alliance of Religions and Conservations
and Japanese Jinja Honcho (Association of Shrines). He invites the worlds religions to help
shape the global debate on social, political, and economic measures for the Post-2015
Development Agenda. He admits part of the weaknesses of Millennium Development Goals

were due to the fact that they had been drafted by technocrats and economists, whose focus
was narrowly materialist.14 Thus, religious faith and more spiritually animated lenses are
called for to provide a moral compass for the next agenda. The promulgation of the ideals of
the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) is posited as a channel for political, corporate,
and civil society influence on the trajectory of global development. The United Nations joins
those calling for love as the organizing principle for our humanity: By spreading messages
of respect, compassion and love, WCC members can combat bigotry and hatred, and foster
greater tolerance and trust.15 We posit that through Seo and Creeds framework for
influencing institutional change, religious communities can work constructively with the
contradictions they are concerned with. Through their considerations of such contradictions,
people-of-faith will be able to better understand, learn from, enhance each other, and
contribute to resolving aspects of the global crises they may have shared concerns about. One
way to do this is through interfaith collaborations that invite theological inclusiveness among
concerned people who seek to both understand and contribute to the transformations of
contemporary organizations into entities that promote social and environmental responsibility
for the well-being of people and planet. It is to the potential of commonalities (diversely
expressed) that we now direct our attention.
Unity in difference
Sacks (2003, p. 20) posits that God created a world of diversity and made one great
covenant with humanity in which humans must have faith. All faiths are not and need not be
the same. People can be enlarged by the differences among them. Knitter (2007) urges
religious communities to put aside their traditional and various ways of claiming that My
God is bigger than your God (p. 100). There is a growing need for a transformative shift to
form a community of communities in which each tradition will preserve its identity and at
the same time deepen and broaden that identity through learning from, appealing to, and
working with other communities (Knitter 2007, p. 117). Thus, exclusion can be overcome
with respect for religious pluralism. According to Eck (2005), acknowledgement of diversity
is a necessity in every sphere of human life. A focus on plurality can be the means of
blending unique features of diverse identity. Religion is no exception. Religious pluralism,
argues Eck (2005), provides the opportunity for positive engagement through which to seek
understanding, commitment, and respect for differences. Inter-religious dialog provides an
opportunity for leadership in a world of grave disparities where love for the marginalized is
often difficult to detect in the secular and often economically driven institutional logics being
amplified globally since World War II (Chomsky and Herman 1979). Kumar (2013) draws
attention to the reconceptualization of the world post World War II as a world of two halves:
(1) the developed a world of industry, technology, free trade, and consumerism
which raises the standards of all people and;
(2) the undeveloped world a world of agriculture, rural life, local economy, and
low consumption which keep people in poverty (p. 138).
The mission of mainstream economists and politicians he claims is to industrialize
the world, create economic globalization, and allow the free market is to solve the problem of
underdevelopment (p. 138). While indeed the intensification of this mode of human
organization is evident the world over, and critics of this development may attribute a more
self-serving motivation to the form of corporate colonization of the world, there is growing
agreement that this mode of organization is exacerbating social disparity and environmental
degradation. Kumar (2013) is of the view that human attempt to harness nature to the desires
and greed of humanity is tantamount to a war against nature (p. 131). He quotes Iranian
Sufi scholar Hussein Ghomshei, who claims that: the knowledge of universal harmony is
science, the communication and the expression of this harmony is the arts and the practice of
that harmony in daily life is religion; they complement each other [and thus] . If we wish to

create a sustainable future and mitigate the problems of resource depletion, the population
explosion and the demise of biodiversity, then we need to create a coherence between the
sciences, the arts and religions (Kumar 2013, p. 135) The current impetus for
environmentalism, argues Kumar, is largely fear driven.
This cannot be the right motivation for a truly sustainable future [but that] love and
reverence for Earth will automatically result in sustainability, harmony and coherence
(Kumar 2013, p. 135). He calls for spirituality for soil, soul, and society. Such a focus invites
an exploration of our common indigeneity to Earth who sustains us and all that this implies
in stimulation communities of spirit (Williams et al. 2012). Communities of spirit are united
deeply in the search for and service of a principle of love.
Spiritual and moral dimensions of globalization
We have aligned our reasoning with those scholars and leaders across political and
religious spectrum for who the intensification of capitalism globally is increasingly
associated with the exacerbation of social inequality and environmental degradation.16 For
those with acute moral sensitivity, this mode of degradation in which we are all implicated,
entails the degradation of our selves personally and as a species endowed with a
conscience. For those who see themselves as people-of-faith, this degradation is in conflict
with the mandate to love and calls for the reconsideration of the spiritual and moral
dimensions of globalization. We posit that it is not possible to act ethically in the local
context without a deep reflection on the part our acts of institutional compliance and technical
skills bring to the domestication of those who must serve or be sacrificed for the empire.
In 2013, Pope Francis named unfettered capitalism a new tyranny. He stated that
today we also have to say thou shalt not to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such
an economy kills.17 He is not the first to name the deadly character of capitalism unleashed
from the ethical constraints of principles of justices and responsibility. Where challenges to
such degradation of ethical principles are expressed openly and where the domesticating
disciplines of subjugation cannot be restored without explicit violence, the full and
sometimes violent force of the State is likely to be justified in fundamentalist market terms.
People-of-faith are embroiled in all sides of the conflicts of interests and in the formulation of
their remedies. To progress the conversation with some fresh ideas, we are drawn to the
insights of the Radical Human Ecologists finding their way into organizational studies.
Radical Human Ecologists are concerned with the colonization of the spirit and the disease
of oppressed consciousness (Daes 2000, p. 4 as cited in Williams et al. 2012, p. 155), be that
through the imposition of secular or religious orthodoxy. Religious and secular differences
remain a potent opportunity to exacerbate tensions, and to embed or shift allegiances that
require continued investigation and vigilance. In their promotion of the potential influence of
Radical Human Ecologists on the trajectory of humanity and on the state of Planet
Earth, Williams et al. (2012) state that the deeper recesses of human agency are inevitably
located in our onto-epistemological relationship to the world (p. 4). In a contributing
chapter, Loening (2012, p. 16) suggests that we need to question every aspect of how, where,
and why we live. The how and where are among the questions must answer as an everyday
part of our lives. Adding on the why creates two additional dimensions: Why are we here?
(as in What is the meaning of life?), and Why do we do things the way we do?. From the
perspective of Radical Human Ecologists, these questions invite critique of the prevailing
ideologies of growth and development that they associate with the rapacious destruction of
Earth, our home for the materialistic benefit of a few. They contend that Western capitalist
approaches are oppressive and the experience of oppression is spiritual death (Daes 2000,
p. 5 as cited by MacKinnon 2012 in Williams et al., p. 154). They invite us to consider that
the alienation of spirit intrinsic to a secularized capitalist empire is not deeply addressed by
Western religions seen to be complicit in the instilling of possessive individualism. This

complicity exemplified in the religiously inspired notion of the ownership of ones soul and
of individualized salvation doctrines.
Radical Human Ecologists call for new ways of thinking, being, and doing to ensure
the survival and flourishing of the earth, human, and non-human life. An example of RHE as
the organizing principle for peacebuilding is the Interchange Project, a diverse group of
community-based peace-builders around the world. Interchange uses participatory processes
that do not favor any one world view to collaborate on educational and research projects. It
encourages interplay between its outer-focused goals and its inner philosophy to build a
dynamic, durable, and positive peace (Goodman 2012). Interchanges president says of
Interchanges dialog across difference approach that [genuine dialog] has also given us the
almost mystical moments of grace that both Freire (1972) and Buber (1970) describe when
the presence of something eternal becomes evident (Goodman 2012, p. 268).
The conceptual foundations of RHE lie inward. These ideas encourage deep reflection
by people of all faiths. Faith, hope, and love are universal energies for systemic
transformation: Faith: that we have the capacity to change direction in all aspects of our
humanity Hope: that sufficient people will direct their energies towards changes in the
trajectory of globalization that prioritise universal inclusiveness, peace, and planetary wellbeing Love: as the means and the measure of the human condition and our relationship with
Earth.
[Re] Storying corporate social (and environmental) responsibility
Corporations are increasing held account for the degrading effects of their practices.
Recent themes of major conferences in organizational and management disciplines are
examples of the extent to which these concerns have reached the attention of management
researchers and teachers in management and organizational studies.18 For example, the
attraction to the work of BAWB19 demonstrates the growing appeal to an invitation to
participate in working for good. Their espoused commitment to contribute to the
transformation of these degradations is exemplified also in the large number of signatories to
the UNGC.20 CR in its various iterations expresses the commitment of its advocates in
practice. CR, a discourse of increasing significance, is indeed attractive to many of our
students. Fleming and Jones (2013), however, call us to a more critical caution in the
appealing rhetoric of CR. They argue that closer attention to its part in the maintenance of the
hegemonic influence of corporations in the prevailing form of globalization is called for.
While we have argued that tensions and contradictions within and among diverse
religions may be the source of creativity and need not be feared, we caution against uncritical
enchantments with superficial recognition of religious diversity, however, particularly when
harnessed to the emerging prominence of CR. Following Fleming and Jones (2013), the
hegemonic potential of CR agendas do not tackle deeply enough the de-animated,
homogenized, instrumental global culture with all its indulgence and management of a
superficial tolerance for diversity. Humphries and Grice (1995) are among those who have
long cautioned that what may appear as a call to justice through the recognition of diversity
may be a skilful and selective harnessing of the once marginalized to serve the market
before all else. The implicit doctrine of meritocracy continues to justify unequal outcomes as
the legitimate returns from unequal investment. Market outcomes become the proxy for
justice in this prevailing form of development called globalization (Dyer et al. 2014).
Engaging religious or spiritual values to maintain this form of human organization is to short
change the potential of our humanity. In material terms, the form of so-called global
development serves the interest of a very small portion of the world, puts very large
numbers of people under great pressure, and is the cause of sickness and death of many. Earth
remains a resource to be harnessed to the interests of The Market. The flow of wealth streams
into the coffers of the already-rich. What of the mandate of the state to ensure the well-being

of all its citizens? While the democratic state is mandated to care for all its citizens, it can
hardly be trusted to take the side of the vulnerable against the privileged. The modern state is
against uncertaint and vulnerability, argues Bauman (2011). It promises to protect its subjects.
Yet, it is the state that provides and protects the legal and policy context for the intensification
of markets that generate the capricious and endemically unpredictable market forces. Except
for the task of creating and protecting the legal conditions of market freedoms, political
power has no need to contribute to the production of uncertainty and the resultant state of
existential insecurity; the vagaries of the market are sufficient to erode the foundations of
existential security and keep the spectre of social degradation, humiliation and exclusion
hanging over most of societys members (p. 52). The nigh universally reckless pursuit of
economic growth and material possession contrasts markedly with a relational ethic as
described by Hoskins et al. (2011), who call for an ethical commitment to the well-being of
all peoples and to Earth as inseparable relationships. This call for responsibility to universal
well-being is also given form in the UNGC and its various programs of influence, including
the Business Guide to the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the call to
environmental responsibility articulated in the Rio +20 agenda. For people-of-faith, these
may be channels of influence to bring love, compassion, and revolutionary thoughtscapes,
imagination, and political will to the direction of globalization. Such influence might generate
a different genesis story to ideas about a sense of self and of world a world made
ontologically meaningful through extant interconnections and relationships, palpable notions
of justice, responsiveness, and responsibility to be made manifest in action the values of
universal interdependence and well-being through the storying that brings the future towards
us in a different way than the current trajectory of globalization would suggest (Boje 2014).
For people of- faith, such influence may be exerted through re-storying the dominant form of
economic rationality and its associated limited and limiting notion of efficiency.
Korten (2015) urges us to try. A different life-generating or genesis story for humanity
would call into question systemic endorsement of the financial gain of elite at the expense of
the many as a degrading story. It would posit human beings in a story of great moral courage
generated from a genesis and purpose much greater than is expressed in the characters
harnessed to the current trajectory of globalization. It is a belief in the potential of a creative
impulse or inspiration shared by authors such as Carpa and Luisi (2015, 2002), Berry (2012),
Macy and Johnstone (2012) and Williams et al. (2012). This force in/for/through the world is
what some may call God and most people-offaith would call Love. Its many manifestations
include compassion, generosity, and forgiveness. It is never tolerant of evil, degradation, and
injustice in all their diverse expressions. Archbishop Williams (2012), in his book Faith in the
Public Square, reminds humanity that preserving wealth at the cost of our neighbors
difficulty is inhumane. He stresses deep regards of love for our neighbor is the moral and
ethical imperative that can lead us from greed to kindness, from economic injustice to
economic justice. Nowhere is this imperative in need of greater examination than our places
of employment and the part managers and their educators accept for themselves.
We invite more exploration of the proposition that respect for diversity and for
contrast, contradiction, and paradox among and within religions might be seen as an
opportunity for creative confluence of commitment to achieving universal justice, global
peace, and environmental restoration. It is in our nascent interest in the influence of the
vanguard of Radical Human Ecologists in organization and management studies that we find
a thread that may weave connections among the spiritual tenets of many religions and may
deal well with the positive potential of contrast, contradictions, and paradox as positive
energies for the transformation of human selves and the trajectory of globalization.
The way forward

Our suffering can become a spirituality of transformation when we understand that we

have a role in Gods transfiguration of the world. (Tutu 2004, p. 71) Sacks (2003) invites a
paradigm shift through which we come to recognize that we are enlarged not diminished by
difference. He warns of the danger of wishing that everyone should be the same [of] the
same faith on the one hand, the same McWorld on the other [as a way to] prevent the clash
of civilisations (p. 209). He describes the importance of religion as a part of human life
where people find meaning and values that ground their moral and ethical ideas. He provides
a twofold position:
(1) The economics and politics of globalization have an inescapable moral dimension.
(2) Great responsibility lies with the worlds religious communities. Recognition of
diverse viewpoints is significant and is to be valued.
Respect for religious diversity need not be stymied by a desire to give greater
recognition to deep spiritual commonalities. Such commonalities can serve our aspirations for
a fair, safe, and peaceful world. One such commonality is the proposition among all major
religions that the primacy of love be given greater pre-eminence as the generative force for
human existence. It would mean to insist on the primacy of love over freedom . to
insert the project of liberation into a larger framework of a theology of embrace (Volf
1996,p. 105). What would such an embrace entail? Sacks (2003) seeks a genesis of hope
through which to transform violent trajectories to those of love through greater respect for
difference. Levels of tolerance for diversity vary. Various values and beliefs may become
entrenched in practice, in law, and in governance, thus allowing for the recognition of
particular groups of people as nations, ethnic communities, religions, and as friends or foe.
These values and beliefs may be negotiated peaceably or imposed violently. They may be
highly visible in cultural expressions or they may operate at the almost undetectable level of
nuanced ideology insinuating shared value at a level of taken-for-grantedness.
Theological courage is needed in order to transform the redirection of the trajectory of
globalization. We encourage people-of-faith to work together to transform the violence and
hatred within and among religions. We look to the influence of leaders among people-of-faith
and of global bodies such as the United Nations and a vanguard of Radical Human Ecologists
in the disciplines of organizational studies to see what a confluence of hope in love as a
universal energy can bring to the conversations in and about CR.
Religious faith will not provide all the insight needed to transform the contemporary
trajectory of globalization; nevertheless, through spiritual wisdom, people-of-faith can
contribute to such transformation by offering alternative ethical and moral responses for the
well-being of humanity and the planet. The degradation of people and planet runs counter to
the theology of love held in common by all religions. Where love is compromised, people-offaith have a place to act. There are already many strong voices among people-of-faith that
advocate for the acknowledgement of religious pluralism. Their position is based on the
belief that all religious traditions promote unity within and between religious faiths. They
propose that unity and diversity are not incongruent. They urge that religious people
everywhere must learn to contend with difference of viewpoint, experience, cognition,
interpretation. They must resist competing claims for religious allegiance and identity.
Making explicit the differences and contradictions within and among people-of-faith
mandated to manage in the lives of others is an opportunity to work constructively with those
differences in our places of work, in our communities, places of employment, and nations
not to subsume one to another, but to find ways to ensure that in such difference, love is
served.