Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Seven Principles for Seven Generations: Moral Boundaries for Transformational Change

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Humanistic Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 04 January 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

This paper seeks to provide an approach for achieving a more socially and environmentally sustainable life by reframing the rules of engagement with the planet and with each other by setting minimum standards on essential criteria i.e., by defining “off-limits”zones for corporate action. For a more humanistic and socially just way of living life that would sustain the planet, a set of moral boundaries that cannot be breached are conceived. We offer a set of possible normative leverage points that must not be violated by business in the long-term. Our paper takes a forward-looking view beyond the current generational targets for sustainability. We operate on the premise that sustainability involves preserving the future generations of the planet in both an environmental and human sense. The Moral Boundaries for Business framework embraces the Seventh Generation Principle. The moral boundaries we offer in this paper, if followed, are meant to have positive implications for humanity and the planet in the next seven generations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • Abela, A. 2001. Adam Smith and the separation thesis. Business and Society Review 106(3): 187-199.

  • Ahen, F. 2021. International mega-corruption Inc. The structural violence against sustainable development. Critical perspectives on international business. ISSN: 1742-2043

  • Alonso, J.S. 2021. Purdue Pharma Deceptive Research Misconduct: The Importance of the Use of Independent, Transparent, Current Research. Voices in Bioethics 7. https://doi.org/10.7916/vib.v7i.7786

  • Bebchuk, L.A., and R. Tallarita. 2020. The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance. Available at SSRN 3544978.

  • Bero, L.A. 2005. Tobacco industry manipulation of research. Public Health Reports 120 (2): 200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele, R., H. Fabig, and D. Wheeler. 2001. Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni. A study in unsustainable development: I. The story of Shell, Nigeria and the Ogoni people–environment, economy, relationships: conflict and prospects for resolution 1. Sustainable Development 9 (2): 74–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, C. 2012. The Nestlé infant formula controversy and a strange web of subsequent business scandals. Journal of Business Ethics 106 (3): 283–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brill, S. 2015. America’s most admired Law Breaker. Retrieved May 6, 2016, from http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/miracleindustry/americas-most-admired-lawbreaker/.

  • Brulle, R.J. 2018. The climate lobby: a sectoral analysis of lobbying spending on climate change in the USA, 2000 to 2016. Climatic Change 149 (3): 289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Business Roundtable. 2019. Updated Statement Moves Away from Shareholder Primacy, I. C. to A. S. (2019, August 19). Business Roundtable Redefines the Purpose of a Corporation to Promote ‘An Economy That Serves All Americans’. Retrieved December 19, 2019, from https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-purpose-of-a-corporation-to-promote-an-economy-that-serves-all-americans.

  • Chowdhury, M.F., and T.R. Tanim. 2015. Industrial accidents in Bangladesh apparel manufacturing sector: An analysis of the two most deadliest accidents in history. Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Management Studies 3 (2): 115–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comyns, B., and E. Franklin-Johnson. 2018. Corporate reputation and collective crises: A theoretical development using the case of Rana Plaza. Journal of Business Ethics 150 (1): 159–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crilly, D., M. Hansen, and M. Zollo. 2016. The grammar of decoupling: A cognitive-linguistic perspective on firms’ sustainability claims and stakeholders’ interpretation. Academy of Management Journal 59 (2): 705–729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H.E. 2006. Sustainable development—definitions, principles, policies. In The future of sustainability, 39–53. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T.E., and A.A. Kennedy. 1982. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of organizational life. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development. 2018. Vocation of the Business Leader: A Reflection. Vatican City: Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and J.P. Walsh. 2015. Toward a theory of business. Research in Organizational Behavior 35: 181–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and T.W. Dunfee. 1994. Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review 19: 252–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duanmu, J.L. 2014. State-owned MNCs and host country expropriation risk: The role of home state soft power and economic gunboat diplomacy. Journal of International Business Studies 45 (8): 1044–1060.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eder, K. 2006. Europe’s Borders The Narrative Construction of the Boundaries of Europe. European Journal of Social Theory 9 (2): 255–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California management review 36 (2): 90–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J. 2013. Enter the triple bottom line. In The triple bottom line, 23–38. Routledge.

  • Fenton, C., and A. Langley. 2011. Strategy as practice and the narrative turn. Organization studies 32 (9): 1171–1196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B.L. Parmar, and S. De Colle. 2010. Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Friedman, M. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times. September 13: 122–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendron, C., and J. P. Revéret. 2000. Le développement durable. Économies et sociétés 37 (91): 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K.E. 1991. Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K.E. 2007. Conscience and Corporate Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, T., F. Figge, J. Pinkse, and L. Preuss. 2018. A paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Descriptive, instrumental, and normative aspects. Journal of Management Studies 148: 235–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. 2015. Exxon knew about climate change almost 40 years ago. Scientific American 26.

  • Harari, Y.N. 2016. Sapiens: A Brief History of Mankind. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, F. 2021. Regulate business to tackle climate crisis, urges Mark Carney. The Guardian.

  • Herkert, J., J. Borenstein, and K. Miller. 2020. The Boeing 737 MAX: Lessons for engineering ethics. Science and engineering ethics 26 (6): 2957–2974.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C., and W. Meckling. 1976. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3 (4): 305–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laville, S. 2019. Fossil fuel big five’spent€ 251m lobbying EU’since 2010. The Guardian 24, 2019.

  • Lenton, T.M., J. Rockström, O. Gaffney, S. Rahmstorf, K. Richardson, W. Steffen, and H.J. Schellnhuber. 2019. Climate Tipping Points: Too Risky to Bet Against. Nature 575: 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.F. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge. vol. 10. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press.

  • Marks, J.H. 2020. Lessons from corporate influence in the opioid epidemic: toward a norm of separation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 17 (2): 173–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S.R. 2016. Stories about values and valuable stories: A field experiment of the power of narratives to shape newcomers’ actions. Academy of Management Journal 59 (5): 1707–1724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. 2019. Corporate Purpose and the Business Roundtable. Transactions: Tenn. J. Bus. L. 21: 361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norberg, P. 2018. Bankers bashing back: amoral CSR justifications. Journal of Business Ethics 147 (2): 401–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oatley, K. 1994. A taxonomy of the emotions of literary response and a theory of identification in fictional narrative. Poetics 23 (1): 53–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentland, B.T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of management Review 24 (4): 711–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirson, M. 2017. Humanistic Management: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prentice, R. 2019. Just compensation? The price of death and injury after the Rana Plaza garment factory collapse. In The Politics and Ethics of the Just Price. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

  • Raworth, K. 2012. A Safe and Just Space for Humanity: Can We Live within the Doughnut. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Climate Change and Resilience 8 (1): 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, I.I.I. Chapin, F.S. Lambin, E., & B. Nykvist. 2009. Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2).

  • Ruggie, J. 2011. Report of the special representative of the secretary-general on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises: Guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the united nations ‘protect, respect and remedy’framework. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 29 (2): 224–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M.A. 2015. Business and human rights in historical perspective. Journal of Human Rights 14 (2): 155–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schembera, S., and A. G. Scherer. 2017. Organizational strategies in the context of legitimacy loss: Radical versus gradual responses to disclosed corruption. Strategic Organization 15 (3): 301–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaxon, Nicholas. 2019. Tackling Tax Havens. Finance and Development 56 (3): 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D.A. 2019. Researching the dark side, downside, and destructive side of entrepreneurship: It is the compassionate thing to do! Academy of Management Discoveries 5 (3): 217–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P., and N. Guimarães-Costa. 2017. Achieving environmental sustainability: The case for multi-layered collaboration across disciplines and players. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 116: 340–346.

  • Siano, A., A. Vollero, F. Conte, and S. Amabile. 2017. More than words”: Expanding the taxonomy of greenwashing after the Volkswagen scandal. Journal of Business Research 71: 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J., and C. Gomez. 2011. MNEs and corruption: The impact of national institutions and subsidiary strategy. Strategic Management Journal 32 (3): 280–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S. E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E. M. Bennett, and C. Folke. 2015. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223): 1259855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner, T., E.B. Barbier, I. Bateman, I. van den Bijgaart, A. S. Crépin, O. Edenhofer, … A. Robinson. 2019. Policy design for the Anthropocene. Nature Sustainability 2 (1): 14–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C.E., E. Xie, and M.W. Peng. 2016. Toward a legitimacy-based view of political risk: The case of Google and Yahoo in China. Strategic management journal 37 (5): 945–963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooze, J., and Adam. 2018. Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. 2013. The Spirit of Science and Socially Responsible Scholarship. Management and Organization Review 9 (3): 375–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO. 2017. Guidelines on sustainability science in research and education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasieleski, D.M., S. Waddock, and P. Shrivastava. 2021. Management and the Sustainability Paradox. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. vol. 3. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Witten, M. 1993. Narrative and the culture of obedience at the workplace. In Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives, ed. D. Mumby, 97–118. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ICN Business School, Nancy, France

    Nuno Guimaraes Da Costa & David Wasieleski

  2. Fairleigh Dickinson University, Teaneck, NJ, USA

    Gerard Farias

  3. Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    David Wasieleski

  4. United Nations Sustainable Development Systems, New York, NJ, USA

    Anthony Annett

Authors
  1. Nuno Guimaraes Da Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gerard Farias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Wasieleski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anthony Annett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Wasieleski.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: author name Arnett was corrected to Annett.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Da Costa, N.G., Farias, G., Wasieleski, D. et al. Seven Principles for Seven Generations: Moral Boundaries for Transformational Change. Humanist Manag J 6, 313–328 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-021-00116-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-021-00116-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation