Search results
1 – 10 of over 16000
Andreas Georg Scherer and Moritz Patzer
Jürgen Habermas is one of the most important authors in contemporary philosophy. In this chapter, we analyse his contribution to the philosophical debate on universalism and…
Abstract
Jürgen Habermas is one of the most important authors in contemporary philosophy. In this chapter, we analyse his contribution to the philosophical debate on universalism and relativism and consider its implications for organization studies and organizations operating in an intercultural environment. We briefly describe the critique of a universal concept of reason that has been forwarded by sceptical and postmodern philosophers. As a response to this critique, we outline the contribution of discourse ethics and analyse the theories of Jürgen Habermas and his colleague Karl-Otto Apel. We explore the justification of discourse ethics and point out some problems in its argumentative logic. In the light of this critique, we outline some characteristics of an intercultural ethics that is based on constructivist philosophy and point to some encouraging prospects on the consolidation of the debate between relativistic and universalistic philosophers.
Details
Keywords
Armin Nassehi, Irmhild Saake and Katharina Mayr
Before starting research in the field of ethics, a few common assumptions need to be cleared up. The first is so common that it needs very little space at all: Ethics is a…
Abstract
Before starting research in the field of ethics, a few common assumptions need to be cleared up. The first is so common that it needs very little space at all: Ethics is a scientific discipline. This accurately describes its location and the problems it covers in a modern, functionally differentiated society. As a branch of philosophy and a normative science, its frame of reference is initially located in a world of possible competing reasons. The basic problem is that of trying to explain good reasons – and the horizon is the sayability of ethical sentences which, even when they reflect an ethical practice, open up a scientific horizon. Ethics is therefore a science – and like every science it can only solve scientific problems (see Luhmann, 2002, pp. 79–93). Practical problems are also the scientific problems of ethics – and that is not a deficiency, but rather a consequence of the basic structures of modern society. A modern society cut loose from political, economic, legal, scientific, artistic, educational and medical problems, on the one hand, allows these disconnected spheres to relate radically to each other, while on the other hand making them logically incompatible. A modern society could not exist any other way (see Luhmann, 1998, pp. 1–21; Nassehi, 2005a). This should first be understood before venturing into research on ethics.
This study aims to focus on the purpose and legitimacy of business, notably, the organizational purpose, the conventional view that the purpose of business is to optimize the…
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to focus on the purpose and legitimacy of business, notably, the organizational purpose, the conventional view that the purpose of business is to optimize the returns to shareholders, and the emerging view that organizations serve multiple purposes including economic returns.
Design/methodology/approach
This study applies Habermas’s discourse ethics to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and stakeholder management (SHM) and argues that discourse ethics is a balanced philosophical approach, which can effectively address the limitations of CSR and SHM.
Findings
The analysis demonstrates that discourse ethics is a distinctive philosophical approach to ethical theory and has high relevance to the field of CSR and SHM.
Originality/value
The discursive approach to CSR and SHM is unique because it allows assimilating various ethical situations – from pragmatic to normative – under one theoretical framework. The potential of the proposed approach is illustrated through a thorough discussion of its application to CSR and SHM.
Details
Keywords
Heidi Herlin and Nikodemus Solitander
The purpose of this paper is to get a deeper understanding how not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) discursively legitimize their corporate engagement through cross-sector…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to get a deeper understanding how not-for-profit organizations (NPOs) discursively legitimize their corporate engagement through cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) in general, and particularly how they construct legitimacy for partnering with firms involved in the commodification of water. The paper seeks to shed light on the values embedded in these discursive accounts and the kind of societal effects and power relations they generate, and the authors are particularly interested in understanding the role of modernity in shaping their responsibilities (or lack of them) via various technologies and practices
Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995), the authors analyze the discursive accounts of three water-related CSPs involving the three biggest bottled water producers in the world (Nestlé, Coca-Cola and Danone) and three major non-profits (The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the World Wildlife Foundation and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization).
Findings
The NPO’s legitimate their corporate engagement in the water CSPs through the use of two global discourses: global governance discourse and the global climate crisis discourse. Relief from responsibility is achieved through three processes: replacement of moral with technical responsibility, denial of proximity and the usage of intermediaries to whom responsibility is outsourced.
Originality/value
This paper explores the processes of legitimizing accounts for CSPs, particularly focusing on NPO discourse and their use of CSR elements and the consequences of such discursive constructs, and this has received little to no attention in previous research.
Details
Keywords
Critically examines the ways in which the boundaries of businessethics are being established within business schools, consulting firmsand corporations. Contrasts this official…
Abstract
Critically examines the ways in which the boundaries of business ethics are being established within business schools, consulting firms and corporations. Contrasts this official discourse on ethics with an alternative, more socially informed, and potentially disruptive approach to the ethics of business.
Details
Keywords