Corporate Versus Individual Moral Responsibility

There is a clear tendency in contemporary political/legal thought to limit agency to individual agents, thereby denying the existence and relevance of collective moral agency in general, and corporate agency in particular. This tendency is ultimately rooted in two particular forms of individualism – methodological and fictive (abstract) – which have their source in the Enlightenment. Furthermore, the dominant notion of moral agency owes a lot to Kant whose moral/legal philosophy is grounded exclusively on abstract reason and personal autonomy, to the detriment of a due recognition of the socio-historical grounds of moral social conduct.I shall argue that an adequate theory of responsibility is needed, which does not only take into account individual responsibility, but also collective and corporate responsibility, capable of taking into consideration society and its problems. Furthermore, corporations are consciously and carefully structured organisations with different levels of management and have clearly defined aims and objectives, a central feature upon which I shall be focussing in this paper.     

Moral Discourse and Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting

This paper examines voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting as a form of moral discourse. It explores how alternative stakeholder perspectives lead to differing perceptions of the process and content of responsible reporting. We contrast traditional stakeholder theory, which views stakeholders as external parties having a social contract with corporations, with an emerging perspective, which views interaction among corporations and constituents as relational in nature. This moves the stakeholder from an external entity to one that is integral to corporate activity. We explore how these alternative stakeholder perspectives give rise to different normative demands for stakeholder engagement, managerial processes, and communication. We discuss models of CSR reporting and accountability: EMAS, the ISO 14000 series, SA8000, AA1000, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the Copenhagen Charter. We explore how these models relate to the stakeholder philosophies and find that they are largely consistent with the traditional atomistic view but fall far short of the demands for moral engagement prescribed by a relational stakeholder perspective. Adopting a relational view requires stakeholder engagement not only in prescribing reporting requirements, but also in discourse relating to core aspects of the corporation such as mission, values, and management systems. Habermas’ theory of communicative action provides guidelines for engaging stakeholders in this moral discourse. MaryAnn Reynolds is an Associate Professor of Accounting in the College of Business and Economics at Western Washington University. Dr. Reynolds teaches intermediate financial accounting and is published in the areas of corporate social, environmental and ethical reporting. Kristi Yuthas is the Swigert Endowed Information Systems Professor in the School of Business Administration at Portland State University. Dr. Yuthas teaches accounting and information systems and is published in the areas of social and ethical impacts of management information systems.     

Defining a Post-Conventional Corporate Moral Responsibility

The stakeholder approach offers the opportunity to consider corporate responsibility in a wider sense than that afforded by the stockholder or shareholder approaches. Having said that, this article aims to show that this theory does not offer a normative corporate responsibility concept that can be our response to two basic questions. On the one hand, for what is the company morally responsible and, on the other hand, why is the corporation morally responsible in terms of conventional and post-conventional perspectives? The reason why the stakeholder approach does not offer such a definition, as we shall see, is because the normative stakeholder approaches tend to confuse the social validity with the moral validity or legitimacy. It leads us to a conventional definition of corporate moral responsibility (CMR) that is not relevant to the pluralistic and global framework of our societies and economies. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate this intuition.     

Friedman's Stockholder Theory of Corporate Moral Responsibility

In this paper I critically discuss MiltonFriedman's classic article, ``The SocialResponsibility of Business is to Increase itsProfits.' Friedman offers several argumentsfor his stockholder theory of corporate moralresponsibility, according to which acorporation's only moral responsibility is topromote the financial well-being of itsstockholders. I first consider aninconsistency in his statement of his position– namely, the distinct and non-equivalentconstraints he places on profit-maximization(``the rules of the game' and ``the rules ofsociety'). I then turn to a consideration ofsix arguments Friedman gives to support histheory, spelling them out in detail and showingthat none of them is sound. I conclude with abrief intuitive argument against his theory.     

Moral Intensity and Managerial Problem Solving

There is an increasing interest in how managers describe and respond to what they regard as moral versus nonmoral problems in organizations. In this study, forty managers described a moral problem and a nonmoral problem that they had encountered in their organization, each of which had been resolved. Analyses indicated that: (1) the two types of problems could be significantly differentiated using four of Jones' (1991) components of moral intensity; (2) the labels managers used to describe problems varied systematically between the two types of problems and according to the problem's moral intensity; and (3) problem management processes varied according to the problem's type and moral intensity.     

企业社会责任与相关会计问题的探讨

本文从经济学的角度分析了企业社会责任的内涵和约束机制,强调企业社会责任制度建设和制度约束的重要性,表述了企业社会责任是均衡利益的要求,是权益保护原则和平等交易规则从微观向宏观扩展的结果,揭示了会计行为的社会责任属性,并对企业社会责任与会计学相关问题主要方面的关系进行了框架性分析.     

Stakeholder Duties: On the Moral Responsibility of Corporate Investors

Stakeholder theory usually focuses on the moral responsibility of corporations towards their stakeholders. This article takes the reverse perspective to shed light on the moral responsibility of stakeholders??specifically, investors or ??financiers??. It explicates a distinction between two types of financiers, creditors and shareholders. Many intuitively judge that shareholders have greater or more extensive moral responsibility for the actions of the corporations they invest in than do bondholders and other creditors. Examining the merits of possible arguments for or against treating owners and creditors differently elucidates which arguments can support the moral duties of investors generally, and different duties for different groups of investors specifically. The paper considers three possible lines of arguments, rooting investors?? responsibility, respectively, in how they enable corporate conduct, how they benefit from it, and to what extent they are complicit in it. The paper argues that a notion of complicity is the only tenable ground for holding investors liable; sketches an account of complicity based on the recent philosophical literature on collective intention and collective action; and concludes that shareholders but not creditors can generally be seen as complicit on this account.     

Toward Moral Responsibility Theories of Corporate Sustainability and Sustainable Supply Chain

Earth’s life-support system is facing megaproblems of sustainability. One important way of how these problems can be addressed is through innovation. This paper argues that responsible innovation that contributes to sustainable development (SD) consists of three dimensions: (1) innovations avoid harming people and the planet, (2) innovations ‘do good’ by offering new products, services, or technologies that foster SD, and (3) global governance schemes are in place that facilitate innovations that avoid harm and ‘do good.’ The paper discusses global governance schemes based on deliberation as a means to foster such responsible innovation. These schemes can provide voluntary soft-law regulations that complement and extend national and international hard-law regulations and facilitate collective innovation that contributes to SD goals. The article addresses the facilitative role of governments and international organizations in overcoming problems of deliberation and offers illustrative examples of such governance schemes.     

For or Against Corporate Identity? Personification and the Problem of Moral Agency

This article explores the concept of corporate identity from a moral perspective. In it we argue that the reification and personification involved in attributing an identity to an organization has moral repercussions. Through a discussion of ‘intentionality’ we suggest that it is philosophically problematic to treat an abstraction of the corporation as possessing identity or acting as a conscious moral agent. The article moves to consider practical and ethical issues in the areas of organizational commitment, of health and safety, and corporate social responsibility, and finds that the notion of identity can be abused, although it will no doubt continue to be used as it does have some practical utility. In conclusion, we argue that despite being meaningless from a philosophical stance, the concept of corporate identity need not be discarded, however, it is far from benign and intense moral scrutiny is necessary wherever it is applied. Ian Ashman PhD is a senior lecturer in the HRM division of the Lancashire business School, University of Central Lancashire. He has recently authored a number of papers on business ethics, leadership and research methods, all of which draw upon his interest in philosophies of existential phenomenology. He is an executive member of European Business Ethics Network U.K. Professor Diana Winstanley PhD, FCIPD was Director of Postgraduate Programmes at Kingston Business School, Kingston University. She wrote over 50 articles and five books, including her latest, ‚Personal Effectiveness: A Guide to Action’ (2005, CIPD) and Ethical Issues in Contemporary Human Resource Development (2000, Macmillan). She was a trained humanistic counsellor and an executive member of European Business Ethics Network U.K. Her research interests were in the areas of workplace learning, development, diversity and business ethics. Sadly, Diana Winstanley, died last summer.     

Paternalism and Corporate Responsibility

Some writers suggest that corporations should act in ways which reflect a broad concern for the well-being of others, as opposed to a more narrow (Libertarian) conception of responsibility. But this Broad View of moral responsibility puts us on a collision course with our considered intuitions about paternalistic acts. This paper discusses several aspects of this issue: the neutrality of the Standard View of Paternalism, the nature of the defenses of paternalistic interventions allowed by the Standard View of Paternalism and their reliance on consent; and the sort of position on paternalism the Board View would have to endorse in order to justify the benevolence-motivated orientation required by its conception of moral responsibility.The conclusion is that unless we are prepared to take a different, non-standard view of paternalism the Board View of corporate moral responsibility will be untenable.     

公司治理与企业社会责任研究

<正>一、引言企业社会责任研究兴起于20世纪初,从20世纪50年代开始,西方学术界和企业界就对企业社会责任展开了热烈的讨论。目前对企业社会责任研究可分为两部分,第一部分是对企业社会责任概念的界定和完善     

反腐败与企业社会责任研究

本文借助十八大掀起的一系列反腐行动作为外生冲击,重点考察了反腐败对企业非经济绩效(社会责任绩效)的影响.研究发现:反腐败提升了企业的社会责任绩效;且在此过程中,企业的"掩饰动机"和"资源释放效应"可能发挥了主导作用.进一步研究还发现,在当前反腐败的背景下,增加环境保护、 消费者权利保护以及加强制度建设与改善可能成为企业提升自身社会责任的主要途径.本文为反腐败的实施成效提供了微观角度的实证证据,为"反腐有利论"提供了基于企业社会责任的证据.     

Corporate Moral Responsibility: What Can We Infer from Our Understanding of Organisations?

The question of corporate moral responsibility – whether corporate bodies can be held morally responsible for their actions – has been debated by a number of writers since the 1970s. This discussion is intended to add to that debate, and focuses for that purpose on our understanding of the organisation. Though the integrity of the organisation has been called into question by the postmodern view of organisations, that view does not necessarily rule out the attribution of corporate agency, any more than the postmodern view of the person rules out the attribution of individual agency. The postmodern view is opposed to a reifying, metaphysical view of corporate agency, but a semantic view of corporate agency would seem to sit more comfortably with it. A bigger problem for the idea of corporate moral responsibility arises from the fact that in Kantian terms organisations are not ends in themselves. In that sense they are not like persons, and this must limit their autonomy, and their responsibility. This aspect of organisations also limits their punishability. For these reasons corporate moral responsibility must be seen as more limited than the responsibility of persons.     

The Causal Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility

In this article, we examine the empirical association between corporate governance (CG) and corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagement by investigating their causal effects. Employing a large and extensive US sample, we first find that while the lag of CSR does not affect CG variables, the lag of CG variables positively affects firms’ CSR engagement, after controlling for various firm characteristics. In addition, to examine the relative importance of stakeholder theory and agency theory regarding the associations among CSR, CG, and corporate financial performance (CFP), we also examine the relation between CSR and CFP. After correcting for endogeneity bias, our results show that CSR engagement positively influences CFP, supporting the conflict-resolution hypothesis based on stakeholder theory, but not the CSR overinvestment argument based on agency theory. Furthermore, firms’ CSR engagement with the community, environment, diversity, and employees plays a significantly positive role in enhancing CFP.     

公共管理视角下企业社会责任缺失原因及对策

<正>企业的社会责任,是指企业在追求利润最大化的同时,对社会应承担的责任或义务,最终实现企业的可持续发展。具体来说企业的社会责任大致包括企业的个体责任、企业的市场责任和企业的公共责任。     

Customer Fraud and Corporate Responsibility

Increasing frauds in insurance and mortgage-lending illustrate the dilemma for companies between tackling fraud in the public interest and retaining customer confidence and competitive position.     

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Social Enterprise

In this article, we contend that due to their size and emphasis upon addressing external social concerns, the corporate relationship between social enterprises, social awareness and action is more complex than whether or not these organisations engage in corporate social responsibility (CSR). This includes organisations that place less emphasis on CSR as well as other organisations that may be very proficient in CSR initiatives, but are less successful in recording practices. In this context, we identify a number of internal CSR markers that may be applied to measuring the extent to which internal CSR practices are being observed. These considerations may be contrasted with the evidence that community based CSR activities is often well developed in private sector small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) (Observatory of European SMEs, 2002), a situation which may be replicated in social enterprises especially those that have grown from micro-enterprises embedded in local communities. We place particular emphasis upon the implications for employee management. Underpinning our position is the Aristotelian-informed capabilities approach, a theory of human development and quality of life, developed by Sen (1992; 1999) and Nussbaum (1999) which has been developed further, in an organisational context, (e.g., Cornelius, 2002); Cornelius and Gagnon, 2004; Gagnon and Cornelius, 1999; Vogt, 2005. We contend that the capabilities approach offers additional insights into CSR in social enterprises in general and internal CSR activity in particular. Our article concludes with proposals for future research initiatives and reflections upon social enterprise development from a capabilities perspective.     

Corporate Social Responsibility as Argument on the Web

This paper critically examines the language drawn on to describe socially responsible activities (CSR) in the context of the corporate web page. I argue that constructions of CSR are made plausible and legitimised according to the context of the expression. The web site is a genre of communication which addresses a broad and discerning audience; hence fractures in the institutionalised nature of argument may be apparent. The focus of this paper is to examine how the rhetoric of CSR is legitimised and to develop a framework of argumentation repertoires that operate in this context     

社会责任履行与企业信誉资本生成——基于问卷调查的实证分析

信誉是企业利益相关者对企业的一种综合评价,社会责任影响利益相关者行为,因此对企业信誉可能产生积极的影响。通过问卷调查的实证分析,发现顾客责任、环境责任和慈善责任对企业信誉有显著的正向影响,而政府责任和员工责任对企业信誉影响不明显。