Toward “A Charta”

This paper consolidates the diverse viewpoints expressed in this Research in the Sociology of Organizations volume (Fohim, 2025) that help management and organization studies (MOS) scholars comprehend the current state and the pathways forward in decolonizing the discipline. As a conclusion to this volume, we – a diverse group of scholars with individual experiences, origins, and interests – present a decolonizing Charta. Our mission for decolonizing MOS is based on a shared commitment toward its goals, regardless of whether we have directly experienced the impacts of colonization, borne witness to its effects, or unintentionally perpetuated them. Therefore, in this paper, we aim to pave the way for meaningful change and broaden the scope of consideration within the MOS literature by emphasizing also the need to end the colonial oppression of ecology and non-human living beings. We thus aspire to reimagine and reconstruct the MOS discipline toward an inclusive and equitable scholarly environment where different voices are valued and diverse, viable forms of knowing and living are respected, promoted, and protected.

We do not claim to be authorities on the decolonization of MOS. On the contrary, when we first convened to discuss the prospect of creating a Charta, we questioned our legitimacy in crafting such a document and pondered its purpose. We gravitated toward the concept of a “Toward a Charta” – a text that signifies progress rather than completion. In other words, this “Toward a Charta” document serves as a preliminary outline and an invitation for collaboration, expansion, and feedback on the decolonization of MOS.

In pursuit of the aforementioned objectives, we undertook several steps that encompassed literature reviews and deliberations to find a suitable approach to a first outline of a Charta. These efforts culminated in the insight that such an endeavor is neither a simple task readily definable for implementation nor a process with clear starting and ending points for linear planning. Instead, decolonizing demands an understanding of how colonizations are enshrined in interpretive schemes and scripts guiding social behavior (e.g., in Western societies) and thus also shape the creation and maintenance of an academic discipline as an interactive social process (e.g., George et al., 2006; Scott, 2003). In other words, we contend that MOS scholarship has, irrespective of whether purposefully or non-purposefully, implicitly or explicitly, produced misrepresentations of the social world as part of its own making and remaking. The now widely acknowledged need for decolonizing affirms that this scholarship has been tuned toward the (re-)production of misrepresentations (Bastien et al., 2023), which can occur unconsciously for its members as one abides by the commonly accepted rules of professionalism (Giddens, 1979, 1984). Yet, this places the project of MOS decolonization and the formulation of its Charta on rugged terrain, as its purpose is to alter the interpretive schemes and scripts that guide knowledge production and diffusion within the discipline, thereby also delimiting academic relevance and success.

Debates surrounding the terms “decolonization” and “decoloniality” are rapidly evolving. We acknowledge this ongoing development when using the term “decolonization,” recognizing that our language will likely evolve alongside our understanding. Furthermore, we acknowledge that colonialism encompasses not just territorial, economic, and political violence but also epistemic and cultural violence that erases or diminishes long-standing Indigenous and non-Western knowledge and cultural practices (Duvisac, 2022). Hence, this “Toward a Charta” reflects action through epistemic justice, i.e., decolonizing through “epistemic reconstitution and reparations: drawing on and centering alternative knowledge systems to reimagine the categories of thought and knowledge that underpin our social, economic, and political structures” (Duvisac, 2022, p. 2).

Epistemic justice is a cross-cutting concept in the decolonization literature. In MOS, the need for decolonization arises from its foundation in Western conceptions and values and corresponding biased representations of the world that are routinely applied to non-Western contexts, contributing to epistemic violence and erasure (Khan & Naguib, 2019). For instance, experiences and understandings of Indigenous communities are notoriously underrepresented in MOS elite journals (Salmon et al., 2023; see also Bastien et al., 2023; Murphy & Zhu, 2012). Instead, communities living and organizing by alternative conceptions and values are expected to conform to standards of Western progress and prosperity (e.g., Shantz et al., 2018). By highlighting the principle of epistemic justice, therefore, we portend that decolonizing MOS requires the facilitation of intellectual spaces that can enable a non-hierarchical “exchange of ideas and collaboration between mainstream and heterodox approaches to research” (Banerjee, 2022, p. 1083) as well as education (Allen & Girei, 2023; Woods et al., 2022). Epistemic justice, therefore, would contribute to expanding the scope and impact of different epistemological traditions and avoiding self-serving communities of practice. For effective pursuit, decolonizing would need to become centralized to a certain extent within the disciplinary rules of knowledge production and its diffusion.

Therefore, overcoming biases inherent in MOS requires, on the one hand, to probe Western knowledge structures that disseminate (Jaya, 2001) and “produce knowledge of the Other” (Banerjee, 2022, p. 1078) and, on the other hand, to disrupt any form of institutionalized superiority. We consider that the “Other” knowledge is equally important and that Western knowledge structures require dismantling, not maintaining and reproducing colonial differences (Banerjee, 2022). In line with suggestions presented by Seremani and Clegg (2016), MOS scholarship still needs to develop the capabilities to accommodate the epistemological space where open and serious discussion from various other knowledge viewpoints can occur.

Our project of outlining the status and ways of decolonizing MOS thus extends to different levels of human relations involving both the human and the non-human (i.e. nature). We seek to describe the structural and systemic mechanisms embedded in academic practices and institutions that perpetuate colonial biases. In doing so, we also address the power dynamics within the MOS and challenge the existing norms, latent biases, and institutional practices that contribute to the persistence of colonial legacy.

Based on our analysis of the prevalence of colonial institutions and structures in MOS scholarship through relevant literature, as well as taking inspiration from the Africa Charter for Transformative Research Collaboration,¹ we propose three constitutive elements toward a decolonizing Charta of MOS. First, we provide a checklist to help scholars inquire into potential power imbalances. Second, we outline guiding principles for decolonizing the scholarship. Third, we explicate what we have thus far synthesized about what a decolonizing Charta must achieve.

In the following sections, we walk the readers through a process of decolonizing, making sure scholars and their work benefits from a deeper introspection involving an assessment of their needs and subsequently establishing guiding principles for their work.

After reviewing the literature and establishing a grounded understanding of the aforementioned concepts, we set out to formulate thought-provoking questions that summarize our analysis. We present these questions as a checklist in Table 1 that can be applied at any level, from individual researchers to faculties, journals, and other academic institutions. We argue that it is important to address decolonizing at all of these levels because they represent the institutions and structures of MOS knowledge dissemination and knowledge reproduction. The questions are intended to stimulate reflection on how colonial legacies continue to shape research and teaching.

Each set of questions addresses a power imbalance within MOS scholarship. As such, the table serves as a valuable instrument for gaining insights into the theoretical (including epistemology, language, concepts, etc.) and practical relevance of colonial thoughts as they prevail across the MOS research landscape. Therefore, we propose Table 1 as an instrument for awareness building of the various needs where decolonizing needs to take place. We encourage scholars (the “I”) and institutions (the “We”) to use these questions to identify, reflect, and introspect the extent and scope of power imbalances and, hence, be better prepared to engage deeply with the decolonizing project.

Furthermore, we propose that the power imbalance checklist can ensure the cultivation of a scholarly environment that critically questions and thereby dismantles hegemonic perspectives, fostering inclusivity and embracing diverse epistemologies. It can also be used to spark dialogue and to guide actors toward actionable steps for fostering decolonial practices.

Since decolonizing involves a rigorous ongoing agenda, it is important to establish some guiding principles that establish key standards for scholars to pursue. These guiding principles could serve as the main tenets to that provide clarity of the future vision. With this in mind, we preface the “Toward a Charta” with a set of the following guiding principles focused on social justice, plurality of knowledge, crisis response, and human flourishing. These principles will help recenter our efforts to reimagine MOS with the aim of nurturing an inclusive and equitable academic space that fuels human and environmental well-being.

• Social Justice: A concerted and action-oriented effort is crucial, as a matter of social justice, to disrupt the continuation of unjust hierarchies within MOS. These hierarchies, rooted in colonial histories, perpetuate broader global political and economic inequities. Therefore, it is imperative to foster a clear, collaborative, and collective approach to address these issues effectively.

• Knowledge Plurality: Academic research must embrace diverse perspectives to challenge the dominance of Western scientific thought and address the adversities confronting the world.

• Crisis Response and More-Than-Human Flourishing: Academic research should prioritize addressing global crises, promoting human dignity across cultures, and the flourishing of all life on Earth.

With the above guiding principles, we step closer “Toward a Charta”, which puts forth an initial set of commitments that orient scholars to propel MOS decolonization forward. These commitments inform the conceptualization and dissemination of research as well as other institutional domains.

Our approach “Toward a Charta” in Fig. 1 builds on the foundational insights from the power imbalances highlighted in Table 1. Yet, it ambitiously extends its scope to implement systemic changes across the MOS discipline. While the checklist in Table 1 effectively highlights specific areas where colonial biases manifest – such as in epistemology, language use, and resource allocation – the Charta transcends this initial diagnostic function. It proposes a more comprehensive blueprint not merely to identify but to actively dismantle and reconfigure the entrenched colonial structures within MOS. The Charta, therefore, serves as an evolutionary step toward deeper structural transformation.

In the construction of the Charta, we placed our focus on key areas of scholarly influence within MOS, specifically targeting teaching, business schools, conferences, and journals due to their roles as primary mechanisms for knowledge production, dissemination, and legitimization. These areas of scholarly influence not only shape the intellectual landscape but also act as platforms where colonial legacies are perpetuated or challenged, historically reinforcing colonial ideologies through curriculum design, research priorities, and knowledge dissemination that prioritize Western perspectives.

This led us to organize the Charta around seven core themes that commit to revising the theoretical foundation of the MOS discipline: furthering epistemic justice, upholding ethics of respect and de-anthropocentrism, committing to resources and collaborations, building global collaborations, demonstrating cultural sensitivity and educational transformation. Each of these themes is interconnected, targeting different aspects of the academic environment yet united in the overarching goal of dismantling colonial legacies. By focusing on these strategic intervention points, the Charta harnesses their transformative potential to foster a more inclusive, equitable, and diverse academic environment in MOS, initiating critical discussions, encouraging reflective practices, and facilitating a broader re-evaluation of how knowledge is created and valued in the discipline. Thus, the Charta moves beyond mere reflection on existing disparities to forge practical pathways for a reimagined, inclusive, and equitable academic discipline.

Recognizing these areas as critical for implementing meaningful change, the Charta should, therefore, be used to identify teaching strategies, business school curricula, conference themes, and journal policies as actionable points for introducing decolonial practices to replace entrenched colonial norms. Moreover, the breakdown underscores the responsibility and complicity of these educational and scholarly activities and institutions in maintaining or dismantling colonial structures, compelling stakeholders to take responsibility for driving change. This table could be expanded to establish a clear and actionable framework for stakeholders, ensuring they can implement and adapt the Charta’s principles effectively within the MOS discipline and beyond.

While we diligently chart our course toward a comprehensive Charta for decolonization of management and organization studies, decolonizing MOS should be viewed not as a static endpoint but as an ongoing process of reflexivity. This dynamic approach highlights the necessity of unlearning traditional frameworks and embracing a wide spectrum of ontologies and epistemologies. By prioritizing continuous critical reflection, the field can more effectively identify and dismantle the entrenched colonial legacies that shape its practices and theoretical underpinnings. This perspective ensures that decolonization remains an adaptive, inclusive process that is responsive to diverse academic and cultural contexts, avoiding the unintended reinforcement of the very structures we aim to dismantle.

We present this Charta as a paradigm shift toward decolonial practices that prioritize diverse representation, epistemic justice, and equitable access to knowledge. The Charta themes identified above serve as guidance to reshape the landscape of MOS education and scholarship. By advocating for transformative practices, pedagogical reforms, and revamped institutional frameworks, we anticipate the Charta to provide a roadmap for fostering a more inclusive and equitable academic environment within business schools, conferences, and journals. After thoroughly evaluating the principles set forth in the Charta and critically assessing the challenges confronting MOS scholarship, we urge colleagues to make a more informed decision.

This paper serves as a call to action, inviting the MOS community to come together and play an active role in the decolonization of the MOS discipline. Much of what we derive from this paper depends on whether we as a research community will organize in global networks that further promote decolonizing MOS but also create targets, mechanisms, and benchmarks for accountability toward its goals. It is also clear that the dialogue about the need for these efforts and the value of a Charta, require to remain active and open for participation in relevant fora. With the proposed “Toward a Charta,” therefore, we identify and call out the contributors to the colonial past while concurrently inviting and calling in the agents of decolonial change within our MOS community.

The proposed Charta above should be adopted, adapted, and discussed in light of our commitment to decolonizing MOS. Its construction is influenced by our (the authors’) collective experiences and interpretations of our experiences and the literature we have reviewed. Hence, in conclusion, it is important to present our individual positionality to reflect and understand the various identities and worldviews with which we live, engage, and write.

I find myself navigating a complex intersection of minority identities within academia. As a scholar of Indian origin, I am acutely aware of how my skin color, sexual orientation, and recently diagnosed neurodivergence mark me as a triple minority (or a threat) in the West. Despite the corporate experience and an Indian perspective often overlooked in my career in the West, I persist. However, at times, having relocated from India to Rome and finally to the Netherlands, I feel I’ve arrived too late in Europe. While feedback on my academic writings’ rigor persists, I’ve also launched a diversity and inclusion course at my school as one of the forms of my commitment to decolonizing MOS. Still, I wonder, is this burden mine to bear?

I have lived my life at the cusp of privilege and disadvantage. I come from a highly educated family where education served as a right, privilege, and calling. However, as a graduate student in the United Kingdom and later as an academic in Canada and the United States, I realized that some people only saw me through the stereotypes they carried about my religion, ethnicity, and skin color. These stereotypes conveniently intersected with gender. Their persistent questioning left me confused – until I learned to shrug it off. Years later, I realized they were trying to fit me in a neat box of a “good” or a “bad” Muslim (Oborne, 2022). My racialized, gendered, and intersectional experiences in Europe and North America commit me to decolonizing our mindsets and the academic discipline.

I am a white settler and first-generation college student from a rural Ojibwe territory in Wisconsin, United States. My maternal grandmother grew up on an Indian reservation in Oklahoma. My daughters are registered, on their father’s side, in the Muscogee, or Mvskoke, Creek Nation of Oklahoma, United States. I am neurodivergent and was raised in the context of generational addictions and poverty.

The downward pull of many facets (academic, vocational, personal) shapes my contributions here. I check so many marginalized and non-dominant boxes that I have lost count. Yet this is my attempt to resist the narratives that have become much entrenched, particularly in MOS and doing so violently, but in writing only.

I have had the privilege of being born into and raised in an affluent Western society. My awareness and, thus, life orientation benefitted from stays abroad, where the immersion with nature became my focal point for existence. Thereby I learnt about different conceptions of the world, particularly how our Western approaches are limited, for instance, by conceiving of wealth as the access to goods and services. I am now convinced that, in the long run, this Western conception of wealth will have no future.

Join us in embracing this transformative agenda aimed at decolonizing MOS education, research, and practice! Together, we can confront systemic barriers, amplify underrepresented voices, and champion epistemic justice. Your participation is crucial in shaping a more inclusive and equitable future! Share your perspectives and/or sign the “Toward a Charta” document by accessing it via this weblink (Link to Towards a Charta.Link to the Web site) or by scanning the following QR code (see Fig. 2).