Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Contract Theory and Business Legitimacy

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Business Legitimacy

  • 160 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reviews the most prominent approaches to business legitimacy from a contractarian perspective. First, the contractarian business ethics approach is presented. Second, the contractarian approach to business legitimacy is compared with the analogous concept of “social license to operate.” Third, the chapter discusses the use of the social contract argument at different levels: economic system and organizational levels. Fourth, the approach to the legitimacy of ethical norms in business based on the influential theory of Integrative Social Contracts, advanced by Donaldson and Dunfee, is presented in detail. Fifth, the legitimacy of corporate governance based on a hypothetical social contract of the firm is presented. Finally, a reference is made to the purportedly contractarian approach to legitimacy associated to “order ethics.” The chapter ends with the proposal of a liberal legitimacy principle for corporate power, taking Rawls’s liberal legitimacy principle as a model.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackerman B (1980) Social justice in the liberal state. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Aoki M (1984) The co-operative game theory of the firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop JD (2008) For-profit corporations in a just society: a social contract argument concerning the rights and responsibilities of corporations. Bus Ethics Q 18(2):191–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanc S (2016) Are Rawlsian considerations of corporate governance illiberal? A reply to singer. Bus Ethics Q 263(3):1052–1150. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2016.43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanc S, Al-Amoudi I (2013) Corporate institutions in a weakened welfare state: a rawlsian perspective. Bus Ethics Q 23(4):497–525. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM, Tullock G (1962) The Calculus of Consent. Logical Foundations of Constitucional Democracy, Ann Arbor, The University of Michigan Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM (1975) The limits of liberty. Between anarchy and leviathan. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan JM (2000) Freedom in constitutional contract. Perspectives of a political economist. Texas A&M University Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Button ME (2008) Contract, culture and citizenship. Transformative liberalism from Hobbes to Rawls. Penn State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse DL, Suchman M (2008) Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In: Greenwood R, Oliver C, Suddaby R, Sahlin-Andersson K (eds) The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism. Sage, London, pp 49–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Demuijnck G, Fasterling B (2016) The social license to operate. J Bus Ethics 136(4):675–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2976-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T (1982) Corporations and Morality. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Dunfee T (1994) Toward a unified conception of business ethics: integrative social contracts theory. Acad Manag Rev 19(2):252–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Dunfee T (1999) Ties that bind. A social contracts approach to business ethics. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Walsh JP (2015) Toward a theory of business. Res Organ Behav 35(2015):181–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee TW (1991) Business ethics and extant social contracts. Bus Ethics Q 1(1):23–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elms H, Phillips RA (2009) Private security companies and institutional legitimacy: corporate and stakeholder responsibility. Bus Ethics Q 19(3):403–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enoch D (2017) Hypothetical consent and the value(s) of autonomy. Ethics 128:6–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fia M, Sacconi L (2018) Justice and corporate governance: new insights from rawlsian social contract and sen’s capabilities approach. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3939-6

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman S (1990) Reason and agreement in social contract views. Philos Public Aff 19(2):122–157. Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265407

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1976) Essays on ethics, social behavior, and scientific explanation. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi JC (1982) Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In: Sen A, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–62

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh N (2008) Workplace democracy, workplace republicanism and economic democracy. Revue de Philosophie Economique 9(1):57–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh N (2015) The social contract model of corporate purpose and responsibility. Bus Ethics Q 25(4):433–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussain W (2009) No more lemmings, please – reflections on the communal authority thesis. J Bus Ethics 88(Suppl. 4):717–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0328-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC (2002) Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Bus Ethics Q 12(2):235–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley M (1988) A social-contract theory of organizations. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeley M (1995) Continuing the social contract tradition. Bus Ethics Q 5(2):241–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinderman D (2013) Corporate social responsibility in the EU, 1993–2013: institutional ambiguity, economic crises, business legitimacy and bureaucratic politics. J Common Mark Stud 51(4):701–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long BS, Driscoll C (2007) Codes of ethics and the pursuit of organizational legitimacy: theoretical and empirical contributions. J Bus Ethics 77:173–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9307-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luetge C, Armbrüster T, Müller J (2016) Order ethics: bridging the gap between contractarianism and business ethics. J Bus Ethics 136(4):687–697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2977-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lütge C (2012) Wirtschaftsethik ohne Illusionen: ordnungstheoretische Reflexionen. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Lütge C (2012a) The idea of a contractarian business ethics. In: Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics. Springer, Berlin, pp 647–658

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Liang D, Yu KH, Lee Y (2012) Most cited business ethics publications: mapping the intellectual structure of business ethics studies in 2001–2008. Bus Ethics Q 21(3):286–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2012.01652.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansell SF (2013) Capitalism, corporations and the social contract. A critique of stakeholder theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Melé D, Armengou J (2016) Moral legitimacy in controversial projects and its relationship with social license to operate: a case study. J Bus Ethics 136(4):729–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2866-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty J (2005) On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Bus Ethics Q 15(3):455–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neron P (2015) Rethinking the very idea of egalitarian markets and corporations: why relationships might matter more than distribution. Bus Ethics Q 25(1):93–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2015.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman W (2015) Rawls on markets and corporate governance. Bus Ethics Q 25(01):29–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2015.16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state and utopia. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo G, Scherer A (2006) Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: a communicative framework. J Bus Ethics 66(1):71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pies I (2017) The Ordonomics approach to business ethics. Discussion Paper https://ssrn.com/abstract=2973614. Accessed 27 Sept 2018

  • Pies I, Hielscher S, Beckmann M (2009) Moral commitments and the societal role of business: an Ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Bus Ethics Q 19(3):375–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pies I, Beckmann M, Hielscher S (2013) The political role of the business firm: an Ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristotelian idea of individual citizenship. Bus Soc 53(2):226–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650313483484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1980) Kantian constructivism in moral theory. J Philos 77(9):515–572

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness. In: Kelly E (ed) A restatement. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson D, Ross W (1995) Decision-making processes on ethical issues: the impact of a social contract perspective. Bus Ethics Q 5(2):213–241. Retrieved from http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1052150X00011684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell CA, Russell DW, Honea H (2016) Corporate social responsibility failures: how do consumers respond to corporate violations of implied social contracts? J Bus Ethics 136(4):759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2868-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi L (2000) The social contract of the firm. Spirnger, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi L (2006) A social contract account for CSR as extended model of corporate governance (part I): rational bargaining and justification. J Bus Ethics 68(3):259–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi L (2011) A Rawlsian view of CSR and the game theory of its implementation (part I): the multi-stakeholder model of corporate governance. In: Sacconi L, Blair M, Freeman E, Vercelli A (eds) Corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: the contribution of economic theory and related disciplines. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 157–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sacconi L (2013) Ethics, economic organisation and the social contract. In: Grandori A (ed) Handbook of economic organization: integrating economic and organization theory. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 112–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon T (2000) What we owe to each other. Cambridge, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer A, Palazzo G, Baumann D (2006) Global rules and private actors: toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Bus Ethics Q 16(4):505–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava P, Ivanova O (2015) Inequality, corporate legitimacy and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Hum Relat 68(7):1209–1231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons AJ (2010) Ideal and nonideal theory. Philos Public Aff 38(1):5–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer A (2015) There is no Rawlsian theory of corporate governance. Bus Ethics Q 25(01):65–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2015.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Acad Manag Rev 20:571–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren RC (2003) The evolution of business legitimacy. Eur Bus Rev 15(3):153–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340310474659. Permanent link to this document: https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340310474659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wempe B (2005) In defense of a self-disciplined, domain-specific social contract theory of business ethics. Bus Ethics Q 15(1):113–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wempe B (2009) Extant social contracts and the question of business ethics. J Bus Ethics 88(S4):741–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0326-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (2000) The new institutional economics. Taking stock; looking ahead. J Econ Lit 38(3):595–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willke H, Willke G (2008) Corporate moral legitimacy and the legitimacy of morals: a critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s communicative framework. J Bus Ethics 81(1):27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9478-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research for this chapter was (partially) funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy (AEI) and FEDER Funds UE through Research Project BENEB3 (FFI2017-87953-R). Part of the work was done during a Fulbright Visiting Fellowship at the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy I, Moral Philosophy, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Pedro Francés-Gómez

Authors
  1. Pedro Francés-Gómez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Francés-Gómez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Roskilde University , Roskilde, Denmark

    Jacob Dahl Rendtorff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Francés-Gómez, P. (2019). Social Contract Theory and Business Legitimacy. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_29-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_29-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation