Karl R. Popper translated the core idea of critical rationalism to a managerial context when advocating the searching for and learning from mistakes as part of professional ethics. This paper builds on the conjecture that adopting a critical rationalist perspective contributes to advancing management control toward empirical foundation, scrutiny, and continuous learning. Based on the work of critical rationalist Hans Albert, three core components of results controls – namely cause-effect relations, provision of incentives, and accountability – are analyzed for potential obstacles for active testing and learning from mistakes. The impediments identified can be condensed into three types: cognitive limitations, self-interested behavior, and structural properties of results controls, including inherent assumptions about managerial behavior and situational conditions. The findings contribute to management control in various respects – from a more practical side toward means for counteracting the obstacles against a critical rational approach; conceptually, findings indicate so far underdeveloped issues in management control, such as learning on incentivization. Moreover, the analysis reveals that the critical rationalist approach may pose particular challenges for management control and organizational members, as it inherently may impose frequent changes and uncertainty.

This research explores how stakeholder scholarship can evolve into a puzzle-solving tool, akin to more advanced scientific fields. Only a unified stakeholder management science can address issues like firms that, despite the looming threat of climate disaster, prioritize profits over environmental concerns. Such unification, however, depends on a computational turn of mind outlined herein. Stakeholder scholarship has failed to progress toward this end, because stakeholder theory has fallen short of shedding light on the inner workings of the firm in search of the mechanisms that govern its relations with stakeholders, instead lingering over the outermost parts of the social phenomena where stakeholder macro dynamics are obvious. This lays open several hurdles that must be overcome for stakeholder scholarship to become a puzzle-solving tool at the service of the environment and society. Thus, a computational fix may be within reach in the next few decades if the following five steps, elaborated upon herein, guide the transition: 1) probe firm-level mechanisms, 2) focus on qualitative institutional data, 3) adopt computational language to reduce ambiguities, 4) develop algorithms for how activities discharge powers or capacities to fulfill functions, and 5) break with peer-review silos that have made stakeholder theory self-referential.

Progress in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has proved to be a decisive step in many institutions, following the guidelines and encouragement of the European Union and academic proposals. One of the dimensions recent studies have considered central for making progress in the practical development of theoretical proposals for RRI is the institutionalisation of reflexivity at the core of the organisations that develop RRI. This is particularly the case with the promotion of processes that facilitate the establishment of ethical standards throughout the research and innovation cycle. This study attempts to deal with discourses about the institutional reflexivity formulated in the past 15 years based on RRI from a critical-ethical point of view. It does so using the business ethics theory of discourse. This analysis shows that, for this institutional reflexivity to be possible, it is necessary to base the RRI model on a critical-ethical horizon and design an ethical governance system that allows its practical development.