Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Firms and the Next Generations: Difficulties and Possibilities for Business Ethics Inquiry

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the centrality of the topic for the debate on sustainability, future generations have largely been ignored by business ethics. This neglect is in part due to the enormous philosophical challenges posed by the concepts of future generations and intergenerational duties. This article reviews some of these difficulties and defends that much clarity would be gained from making a distinction between future generations and the next generations. It also argues that the concept of next generations offers a better starting point for business ethics to incorporate the topic in its research agenda. We then suggest four potential pathways to explore this territory. The four approaches build on the notion of organizations as communities with memory and vision, on the narrative shape of organizational life, on the affinity of stakeholders with the next generation, and on systems of indirect reciprocity. These first two approaches are connected to communitarian approaches to business ethics, and the last two engage in a dialog with contractarian views and stakeholder theory. The article ends with some implications for theory and practice.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One could consider resources in a broader way to include even landscapes and discuss whether there is an obligation also to preserve some landscapes and wildlife areas.

  2. de-Shalit (1995) suggests that even if there are no positive obligations, the present generation would still have negative obligations to remote future generations, e.g., avoiding causing obvious and considerable harm, and that this would still be different from beneficence or supererogation. We do not enter into this discussion in this article.

  3. The discussion concerning the validity of this distinction has revolved around the notions of cosmopolitanism and nationalism and the difference between global justice and social justice. Other philosophers have made similar distinctions. For example, Michael Walzer talks about thin and thick morality (Walzer 1994). Margalit (2002) calls it morality (thin) and ethics (thick). Other authors have talked about “morally privileged relationships” (Donaldson 1990). For the application of these concepts, see Arenas and Rodrigo (2013).

  4. See endnote 3, above.

  5. These considerations introduce some nuance to the parallelism some authors establish between intergenerational trade-offs and the dynamics of the prisoner’s dilemma (Hardin 1968; Gardiner 2001). Indirect reciprocity comes into play when we put the dynamics of the prisoner’s dilemma in a wider context of interaction, when parties are likely to find themselves in successive situations resembling several rounds of the prisoner’s dilemma. In this type of situation, even if they risk losing some benefits in the immediate quid-pro-quo, they are likely to realize that they need to be concerned about reputation and that they are better off cooperating (Nowak and Sigmund 2005). Additionally, reputation can be bequeathed to succeeding generations. These situations limit restricted versions of self-interest and promote a broader view, which includes cooperation and fair play.

References

  • Arenas, D., & Rodrigo, P. (2013). The challenge of future generations for business ethics. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 1(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D. G., & Bustos, K. (2005). Business, ethics, and global climate change. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 24, 103–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (1997). Sustainability and intergenerational justice. Theoria, 45, 43–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, L. C. (1990). Reciprocity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J. R. (2002). Contractors as stakeholders: Reconciling stakeholder theory with the nexus-of-contracts firm. Journal of Banking & Finance, 26, 1837–1852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosse, D. A., Phillips, R. A., & Harrison, J. S. (2009). Stakeholders, reciprocity, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(4), 447–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. D. (1998). Narrative, politics and legitimacy in an IT implementation. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabeza Gutés, M. (1996). The concept of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, 17, 147–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Care, N. S. (1982). Future generations, public policy, and the motivation problem. Environmental Ethics, 4(3), 195–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowen, T., & Parfit, D. (1992). Against the social discount rate. In P. Laslett & J. S. Fishkin (Eds.), Justice between age groups and generations (pp. 144–161). New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., & Kazmi, B. A. (2010). Business and children: Mapping impacts, managing responsibilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 567–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska, B. (1999). Writing management: Organization theory as a literary genre. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the common good: Redirecting the economy towards community, the environment and a sustainable future. London: Green Print.

    Google Scholar 

  • De George, R. (1979). The environment, rights and future generations. In K. E. Goodpaster & K. M. Sayre (Eds.), Ethics and Problems in the 21st Century (pp. 93–105). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de-Shalit, A. (1995). Why posterity matters: Environmental policies and future generations. London: Routlege.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson, A. (1998). Justice and the environment: conceptions of environmental sustainability and dimensions of social justice. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T. (1990). Morally privileged relationships. Journal of Value Inquiry, 24(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory in business (pp. l97–l106). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, M., Tost, L. P., & Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2010). The legacy motive: A catalyst for sustainable decision making in organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(2), 153–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, J. L. (2010). Children’s labor market involvement, household work, and welfare: A Brazilian case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 92(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, S. M. (2001). The real tragedy of the commons. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 30, 387–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T.-S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20, 874–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, A. (2001). What do we owe the next generation(s)? Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 35, 293–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosseries, A. (2008). On future generations’ future rights. Journal of Political Philosophy, 16, 4467–4474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E. M. (1994). The commons and the moral organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haughton, G., & Hunter, C. (1994). Sustainable cities. London: Kingsley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, J., Moriarty, J., & Norman, W. (2010). Business ethics and (or as) political philosophy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 427–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, M. (2012). Toward an understanding of the psychology of stewardship. Academy of Management Review, 37, 172–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey-Rosés, J., Le Menestrel, M., Arenas, D., Rauschmayer, F., & Rode, J. (2014). Enriching intergenerational decision-making with guided visualization exercises. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 675–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubin, D. C. (1976). Justice and future generations. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6, 70–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeurissen, R., & Keijzers, G. (2004). Future generations and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14, 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2002). Child labor and multinational conduct: A comparison of international business and stakeholder codes. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(3), 291–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41, 1188–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A., Maon, F., Reast, J., & Yani-de-Soriano, M. (2012). Corporate social responsibility in controversial industry sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(4), 393–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue (2nd ed.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, M. (2014). Value-enhancing capabilities of CSR: A brief review of contemporary literature. Journal of Business Ethics,. doi:10.1007/s10551-014-2051-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalit, A. (2002). The ethics of memory. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2012). The firm as a “community of persons”: A pillar of humanistic business ethos. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (2005). Reasonable partiality towards compatriots. Ethical theory and moral practice, 8(1–2), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, J. (2005). On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15, 455–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27, 1179–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005). Evolution of indirect reciprocity. Nature, 437, 1291–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (2006). Citizenship, well-being and sustainability: Epicurus or Aristotle? Analyse & Kritik, 28(158), 172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. (1987). Narratives at work: Storytelling as cooperative diagnostic activity. Field Service Manager, June, 47–60.

  • Page, E. A. (2007). Fairness on the day after tomorrow: justice, reciprocity and global climate change. Political Studies, 55(1), 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, D. (1982). Future generations: Further problems. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 11, 113–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., & Johnson-Cramer, M. E. (2006). Ties that unwind: Dynamism in integrative social contracts theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 68, 283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R. A., & Reichart, J. (2000). The environment as a stakeholder? A fairness-based approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 185–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, C., & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narratives, organizations and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7, 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards, D. A. J. (1982). Contractarian theory, intergenerational justice, and energy policy. In D. MacLean & P. G. Brown (Eds.), Energy and the future (pp. 131–150). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi, L. (2007). A social contract account for CSR as an extended model of corporate governance (II): Compliance, reputation and reciprocity. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(1), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, S. (1997). Relationships and responsibilities. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 26(3), 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organisations are working together to create a sustainable world. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A. J. G. (2009). From CSR to corporate citizenship: Anglo-American and continental European perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(3), 235–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R. C. (1994). The corporation as community: A reply to Ed Hartman. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 271–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. (1996). Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three concepts of search of a theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change. UK Treasury.

  • UNDP (2007). Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world. Human Development Report 2007/2008. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

  • Van Oosterhout, J. H., Heugens, P. P., & Kaptein, M. (2006). The internal morality of contracting: Advancing the contractualist endeavor in business ethics. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 521–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A. (2002). A golden rule over time: Reciprocity in intergenerational allocation decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1011–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Hernandez, M., Medvec, V., & Messick, D. (2007). In fairness to future generations: The role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 233–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Sondak, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Leaving a legacy: Intergenerational allocations of benefits and burdens. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(1), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., & Tost, L. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 165–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16, 57–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1994). Thick and thin: Moral argument at home and abroad. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zsolnai, L. (2006). Extended stakeholder theory. Society and Business Review, 1(1), 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Social Innovation, ESADE-Ramon Llull University, Av. Pedralbes 60-62, 08034, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain

    Daniel Arenas

  2. UAI Centre for Business Sustainability, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Av. Padre Hurtado 750, Viña del Mar, Chile

    Pablo Rodrigo

Authors
  1. Daniel Arenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pablo Rodrigo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Arenas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arenas, D., Rodrigo, P. On Firms and the Next Generations: Difficulties and Possibilities for Business Ethics Inquiry. J Bus Ethics 133, 165–178 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2348-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2348-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation