Building on the success of its 2022 (health behaviors) and 2021 (positive organizational behaviors) research days, RIPCO is organizing its new event on 9 June, 2023 in Paris La Défense. We invite researchers to submit an extended abstract of their paper proposal now. All topics are welcome as long as they fall within the scope of Organizational Behavior (OB), i.e. the interaction between individuals, structures, technologies and/or the external environment. Proposals may refer to one of the three levels of organizational behavior, namely:

• individual level, which draws on organizational psychology, the understanding of human behavior, and the effectiveness of incentives;
• group level, which draws on social psychology, the sociological understanding of human interaction, and group dynamics;
• organizational level, which draws on organizational theory and sociology to undertake systems-level analysis.

Candidates could aim to gain a better understanding of these attitudes and behaviors, to identify their explanatory factors, whatever their nature, or to reveal their consequences. Many "angles of attack" are admissible, among them:

• the psychological approach: traits, states, emotions, beliefs, goals, etc.;
• the sociological approach: conformity pressures, structures, individual and collective learning, etc.;
• the anthropological approach: shared values, ethics, the psychological contract, etc.;
• the political science approach: tensions, conflicts, collective representations whether union-based or spontaneous, organizational democracy, etc.

Theoretical work is encouraged as much as empirical research. The latter may be qualitative (case studies, ethnography, phenomenology, semiotics, narrative analysis, etc.), quantitative (meta-analysis, longitudinal study, experimentation, etc.), or mixed (e.g. action or intervention research). Work aiming at (re)testing the founding works of OB (e.g. Maslow, Herzberg, etc.) in the contemporary context of new representations and experiences of work will be particularly appreciated.

Focus of the Day 2023: This year’s Focus of the Day will be on the behavior of employees and the organizations that employ them in relation to climate and environmental change. Today, alarming news about the future of the planet and its species is mounting, as well as calls for new, more nature-friendly ways of living in the short and long terms. Governments and businesses are facing major changes, while social movements and non-governmental organizations are taking on the mission of transforming these key actors and moving them faster along the transition path. The Covid-19 pandemic, for its part, has heightened awareness of the systemic nature of dysfunction, the interdependence of actors in value chains (Acquier, Valiorgue & Daudigeos, 2017), and the finiteness of resources.

Without being exclusive, three lines of research are of particular interest to us this year. They are based on the contribution of Working Group II to the IPCC Assessment Report (2022), which assesses in detail impacts, risks and adaptation to climate change in cities, where more than half the world's population lives. According to these experts: "People’s health, lives and livelihoods, as well as property and critical infrastructure, including energy and transportation systems, are being increasingly adversely affected by hazards from heatwaves, storms, drought and flooding as well as slow-onset changes, including sea level rise."

The first issue is therefore that of the meaning (Weick, 1995) we should give to what is happening around us. What is happening? What is happening to us with this great transformation? Understanding this means analyzing the situation and understanding the problems to be solved. There are several opposing approaches. Some take a scientistic viewpoint and thus rely on science and technology. Others invite a broader reflection on the culture of people in developed countries, who are increasingly cut off from the natural world and dependent on producers they do not know (Dubuisson-Quellier & Gojard, 2016). Labels and standards for consumers, on the other hand, contain ambivalent signals (Arnold & Loconto, 2021) that do not always guarantee quality and social and environmental responsibility. However, they are currently the preferred instrument for imposing rules along value chains. As we know from the experience of environmental disasters, such as Bhopal (Shrivastava et al., 2020), the risk of error is great in many areas given the size of equipment and the dependence on complex technologies that are often difficult to master. At least two types of motivation for action can be identified: on the one hand, awareness of a danger and the desire to limit its effects, and on the other hand, a commitment to the environment in order to envisage a better future through a profound transformation of society (Adler, 2016).

Since these two motivations are not exclusive, it is possible to build alliances for action together (Gray & Purdy, 2018; Gray, Purdy & Ansari, 2022) that consider the gap between organizations and the power relations between actors. What should be done with the knowledge we have and the knowledge we need to accumulate on new topics? Should we make expertise more specialized or, on the contrary, more general, in order to act as a base for democratically debated choices (Banerjee, 2011)? How can we find public space for long-term issues such as climate change and the in a world dominated by news media covering a wide range of urgent topics?

While many climate issues have been addressed through public policy, corporate self-regulation (Wright & Nyberg, 2015) is also an effective way of approaching the constraints involved. Companies are confronted with sometimes conflicting objectives, combining market performance with the commitments linked to the sustainable development objectives set by international institutions (Nyberg, 2021). Their most urgent actions may also be an effort to avoid becoming the target of social movements and activists. Companies are likely to be singled out for their activities, especially in particularly exposed industries, by motley coalitions that form to promote change despite sometimes confusing visions (Van Bommel & Spicer, 2011). As words and actions are not necessarily aligned, the ability to link actual actions and communication becomes an issue of its own for those interested in corporate sustainability choices (Den Hond et al., 2014). What actions may be most legitimate and effective? For example, should policies be radically transformed, based on the accumulated evidence of change over the next ten years, or should they be reformist and incremental without disrupting the complex stratification of policy actions and institutional structures?

An increasing number of studies are now devoted to representations and emotions linked to climate change. They can be the cause of resilient behaviors or traumas that affect the physical and psychological health of individuals. This is the case, for example, with 'solastalgia' (Albrecht et al. 2007) or the profound distress caused by climate change, which can lead to malaise and depression. At another level of analysis, reactions such as denial or organizational hypocrisy (Brunsson, 1986) may also be of great interest to research since, at individual and collective levels, they act as barriers to change. They can generate efforts to postpone fundamental reforms without overtly denying the urgency of the necessary changes (Christensen, Morsing & Thyssen, 2020; Slawinski, Pinkse, Busch & Banerjee, 2017). Conversely, many of those called to account for their environmental actions do not hesitate to talk about strong, committed actions, especially in poor countries, even though they may be the target of criticism (Banerjee & Jackson, 2011). Although multinational companies are powerful and capable of far-reaching action, it seems that other actors are more legitimate to speak out on environmental issues.

We are particularly interested in approaches that can confront our fears and defenses through debate, such as environmental ethics (Broome, 2012), or through the use of aesthetic experience (Afeissa & Lafolie, 2015). We are also very interested in hearing about groups active in reflection, debate, knowledge creation and dissemination, such as the 1point5 laboratory (https://labos1 point5.org/), a group of volunteer researchers organized within the framework of the CNRS who promote transdisciplinarity, collective learning, and the implementation of change in relation to the participatory democracy specific to the research world. What other collective spaces and moments exist to reflect on what is happening to us?

• Acquier, A., Valiorgue, B., & Daudigeos, T. (2017). Sharing the shared value: A transaction cost perspective on strategic CSR policies in global value chains. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(1), 139-152.
• Adler, P. S. (2016). Alternative economic futures: A research agenda for progressive management scholarship. Academy of Management perspectives, 30(2), 123-128
• Adler, P. S. (2016). Alternative economic futures: A research agenda for progressive management scholarship. Academy of Management perspectives, 30(2), 123-128
• Afeissa H.S. et Lafolie Y. (2015), Esthétique de l’environnement. Appréciation, connaissance et devoir, Editions Vrin, Paris
• Albrecht, G., Sartore, G. M., Connor, L., Higginbotham, N., Freeman, S., Kelly, B., ... & Pollard, G. (2007). Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change. Australasian psychiatry, 15(sup1), S95-S98.
• Banerjee, S. B. (2011). Voices of the governed: Towards a theory of the translocal. Organization, 18(3), 323-344.
• Banerjee, S. B., & Jackson, L. (2017). Microfinance and the business of poverty reduction: Critical perspectives from rural Bangladesh. Human relations, 70(1), 63
• Broome, J. (2012). Climate matters: Ethics in a warming world (Norton global ethics series). WW Norton & Company.
• Rapport du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC), "Changements climatiques 2022 : impacts, adaptation et vulnérabilité".
• Brunsson, N. (1986). Organizing for inconsistencies: On organizational conflict, depression and hypocrisy as substitutes for action. Scandinavian Journal of Management Studies, 2(3-4), 165-185.
• Christensen L.T, Morsing M. and Thyssen O. (2020), Timely hypocrisy? Hypocrisy temporalities in CSR communication, Journal of Business Research, Volume 114, Pages 327-335, ISSN 0148-2963, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.020.
• Den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G., & Lankveld, H. K. V. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of management studies, 51(5), 790-813.
• Den Hond, F., Rehbein, K. A., de Bakker, F. G., & Lankveld, H. K. V. (2014). Playing on two chessboards: Reputation effects between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate political activity (CPA). Journal of management studies, 51(5), 790-813.
• Dubuisson‐Quellier, S., & Gojard, S. (2016). Why are food practices not (more) environmentally friendly in France? The role of collective standards and symbolic boundaries in food practices. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(2), 89-100.
  Dunlap, R. E., & McCright, A. M. (2011). Organized climate change denial. The Oxford handbook of climate change and society, 1, 144-160.
• Friedberg, E. (2015). Le pouvoir et la règle. Dynamiques de l'action organisée. Média Diffusion.
  Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
• Gray, B., Purdy, J., & Ansari, S. (2022). Confronting power asymmetries in partnerships to address grand challenges. Organization Theory, 3(2), 263178772210987
• Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 469-493.
• Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 469-493.
• Nyberg, D. (2021). Corporations, politics, and democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption. Organization Theory, 2(1), 2631787720982618.
• Nyberg, D. (2021). Corporations, politics, and democracy: Corporate political activities as political corruption. Organization Theory, 2(1), 2631787720982618.
• Shrivastava, P., Mitroff, I. I., Miller, D., & Miglani, A. (2020). Understanding industrial crises [1]. In Risk Management (pp. 181-200). Routledge.
• Slawinski, N., Pinkse, J., Busch, T., & Banerjee, S. B. (2017). The role of short-termism and uncertainty avoidance in organizational inaction on climate change: A multi-level framework. Business & Society, 56(2), 253-282.
• Van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2011). Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow food movement. Organization studies, 32(12), 1717-1744.
• Van Bommel, K., & Spicer, A. (2011). Hail the snail: Hegemonic struggles in the slow food movement. Organization studies, 32(12), 1717-1744.
• Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage
• Wright, C., & Nyberg, D. (2015). Climate change, capitalism, and corporations. Cambridge University Press.

Extended abstracts should be written in French or English and should not exceed 1500 words, single-spaced, Times New Roman 12 pt font. They must contain the following information: title, theme, names of all authors, their affiliation(s) and contact information, context, research problem, methodological instrumentation, main results, conclusions, limitations and references (APA standards). Full papers, in English or French, must meet the RIPCO paper submission standards.

Since one of the objectives of the day is to create a link for exchange and discussion between researchers and practitioners, the proposals for papers may correspond to research in progress. However, they must be original, i.e. unpublished or under review by a journal.

Submission of proposals is by email only: soumission_jr2023@ripco-online.com

The Research Day will take place on Friday 9 June, 2023. This year, the event will be in person. Authors are encouraged to come and present their papers face-to-face in order to facilitate scientific interaction and exchange.

• Deadline for abstract submission: April 30, 2023
• Feedback from the scientific committee: May 15, 2023
• Date of the Research Day: June 9, 2023

The best papers addressing the Focus of the Day themes will be shortlisted for inclusion in a special issue of RIPCO. The pre-selection of a paper does not constitute a final acceptance for publication in the special issue.  The authors of these papers will have three months after the research day to submit full papers on the journal website: ripco.manuscriptmanager.net/ripco. Manuscripts must follow the guidelines for manuscript preparation and submission: ripco-online.com/EN/submission.asp. They will follow the usual double-blind editorial process.

Papers on a different theme may be invited to be submitted for publication in regular issues of the journal.