Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Workplace Democracy, Market Competition and Republican Self-Respect

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is it a requirement of justice to democratize private companies? This question has received renewed attention in the wake of the financial crisis, as part of a larger debate about the role of companies in society. In this article, we discuss three principled arguments for workplace democracy and show that these arguments fail to establish that all workplaces ought to be democratized. We do, however, argue that republican-minded workers must have a fair opportunity to work in a democratic company. Under current conditions, this means that a liberal order must actively promote workplace democracy.

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. This conception of private companies is well-established, but not without its critiques. For an overview of the debate on the “theory of the firm” see Garrouste/Saussier (2005).

  2. In order to avoid terminological confusion, it is important to distinguish ‘relations of authority’ from ‘authoritarian’ relations. The former marks a normative relation in which one entity has a right to issue commands to other entities that is (considered to be) legitimate (cf. Raz 1986). The latter term is used to describe illegitimate forms of subjection.

  3. For an overview of the recent debate see Hsieh (2008), Heath et al. (2010) Malleson (2014) and Landemore/Ferreras (2016).

  4. However, we will not further discuss how the fact that shares of companies are traded in financial markets influences the fact that those companies are controlled by capital and not by workers (cf. Dow 2003).

  5. For the main contributions to this older debate see Pateman (1970), Young (1979), Schwartz (1982), Walzer (1983), Dahl (1985) and Ellermann (1992).

  6. On this point see also Moriarty (2005, 2007), Hsieh (2008), Néron (2010) and Singer (2015).

  7. To be sure, this kind of strategic argument takes us only so far. In the nineteenth century, the case for workplace democracy was much stronger. Important public intellectuals like John Stuart Mill or Herbert Spencer argued for it and found quite some resonance. See for an assessment of Mill’s position Riley (1998) and for an assessment of Spencer’s position Werhane (2000).

  8. Hsieh (2005, 2008) argues that workplace republicanism is enough to deal with this problem. His concept of workplace republicanism is close to how we conceive of workplace constitutionalism. He also contemplates this notion. However, his argument is different from ours for two reasons. First, he thinks that exit options are never enough to be free from arbitrary interference, because they are costly. Here we agree with Singer (2015), who argues that it is a normative question to what extent exit-costs are acceptable or not. Second, Hsieh thinks that workplace republicanism is sufficient to free workers from arbitrary interference, while we think that sufficient exit options and sufficient mechanisms of constitutionalism have to come together.

  9. In an earlier version of the paper we made the very strong claim that it is impossible to do so. However future research will have to show whether this is true or not, as one reviewer has pointed out correctly. There already are additional arguments, which could be utilized for such an endeavor, as for instance provided by Martin O’Neill (2008). O’Neill argues on Rawlsian grounds that there might be a right to participation in economic decision-making. However, he is unsure himself whether it leads to workplace democracy or some weaker form of participation. For this reason he adds the more conditional argument that economic democracy might be important for preserving a stable and just basic structure if it enhances democratic character. Again, it is open to further discussion whether weaker forms of participation together with a more equal distribution of the means of production would be sufficient for this task.

  10. This is so, because undemocratic workplaces do not directly violate basic employee rights, as the previous discussion has shown. See Werhane (1985: 77-80) on the idea of employee rights.

  11. Although we focus on “Roman” republicanism in our argument, it can also be extended to “Athenian” republicanism and its emphasis on the importance of being an active member of a demos. However, from a liberal point of view, this cannot be a moral requirement, but has to be seen as a specific perspective on the good life (Pettit 2012: 12; Thomas 2017a: 7–9)

  12. Does this also mean that democratic companies need to have strong forms of direct democracy, as for instance Carol Pateman (1970: 82-84) has argued? This is not necessarily so, because there are different conceptions of republican democracy, some of them resting not on direct democracy, but on certain forms of public deliberation, as Jürgen Habermas (1998) has shown.

  13. On the difficulty of defining reasonableness see Nussbaum (2011).

  14. For an overview of the debates on economic democracy see Schweickart (2011, 2014) and O’Neill/Williamson (2014).

References

  • Anderson E (2017) Private government. In: Anderson E (ed) Private government: how employers rule our lives (and why we Don’t talk about it). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 37–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Arneson R (1987) Meaningful work and market socialism. Ethics 97(2):517–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breen K (2015) Freedom, republicanism, and workplace democracy. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil 18(4):470–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brighouse H, Fleurbaey M (2010) Democracy and proportionality. J Polit Philos 18(2):137–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brighouse H, Robeyns I (2010) Measuring justice: primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll AB (2006) Corporate social responsibility: a historical perspective. In: Marc J, Epstein/Kirk O. Hanson (eds) The accountable corporation, Volume 3: corporate social responsibility. Praeger, Santa Barbara, CA, pp 3–30

  • Carroll AB (2008) A history of CSR. In: Andrew Crane et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook on Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 19–46

  • Christiano T (2008) The constitution of equality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cipley D (2013) Beyond public and private: toward a political theory of the corporation. American Political Science Review 107(1):139–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase R (1937) The nature of the firm. Economia 4(16):389–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1989) The economic basis of deliberative democracy. Soc Philos Policy 6(2):25–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (1985) A preface to economic democracy. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl RA (2001) A right to workplace democracy? Response to Robert Mayer. The Review of Politics 63(2):249–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow G (2003) Governing the firm: workers’ control in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman D (1992) Property and contract in economics: the case for economic democracy. Blackwell Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1970) The social responsibility of corporations is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13:SM17

  • Garrouste P, Saussier S (2005) Looking for a theory of the firm: future challenges. J Econ Behav Organ 58:178–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González-Ricoy I (2014) The republican case for workplace democracy. Soc Theory Pract 40(2):232–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould C (1988) Rethinking democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1998) Three normative models of democracy. In Jürgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, Cambridge/MA: MIT Press 1998:239–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Häni D, Kovce P (2016) Voting for freedom: the 2016 Swiss referendum on basic income: a milestone in the advancement of democracy. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform

  • Hansmann H (1996) The ownership of Enterprise. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    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 

  • Hirschman A (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh N (2005) Rawlsian justice and workplace republicanism. Soc Theory Pract 31(1):115–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh N (2008) Survey article: justice in production. J Polit Philos 16(1):72–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsieh N (2009) Justice at work: arguing for property owning-democracy. J Soc Philos 40(3):397–411

  • Jackson, G. (2004). Contested boundaries: ambiguity and creativity in the evolution of German codetermination, RIETI Discussion Paper No. 04-E-022

  • Jacob D (2014) Justice and foreign rule. On International Transitional Administration, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Landemore H, Ferreras I (2016) In defense of workplace democracy. Political Theory 44(1):53–81

  • Malleson T (2014) After occupy. In: Economic democracy for the 21st century. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer R (2001) Is there a moral right to workplace democracy? Soc Theory Pract 26(2):301–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGaughey, E. (2015). The codetermination bargains: the history of German corporate and labour law, LSE legal studies working paper no. 10/2015

  • McMahon C (1994) Authority and democracy: a general theory of government and management. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon C (1995) The political theory of organizations and business ethics. Philos Public Aff 24(4):292–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon C (2008) The public Authority of the Managers of private corporations. In: Brenkert GG, Beauchamp TL (eds) Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 100–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelson C, Pratt MG, Grant AM, Dunn CP (2012) Meaningful work: connecting business ethics and organizational studies. J Bus Ethics 121(1):77–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller D (1989) Market. Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, State and Community

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty J (2007) McMahon on workplace democracy. J Bus Ethics 71(4):39–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty J (2009) Rawls, self-respect, and the opportunity for meaningful work. Soc Theory Pract 35(3):441–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Néron P-Y (2010) Business and the Polis: what does it mean to see corporations as political actors? J Bus Ethics 94(3):333–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2011) Perfectionist liberalism and political liberalism. Philos Public Aff 39(1):3–45

  • O’Neill M (2008) Three Rawlsian routes towards economic democracy. Revue de Philosophie Économique 8(2):29–55

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill M, Williamson O (2014) Property-owning democracy. Rawls and beyond. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden

  • Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit P (2012) On the People’s terms: a republican theory and model of democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips RA, Margolis JD (1999) Toward an ethics of organizations. Bus Ethics Q 9(4):619–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

  • Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley J (1998) J. S. Mill's Liberal utilitarian assessment of capitalism versus socialism. Utilitas 8(1):39–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1096–1120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2011) The new political role of business in a globalized world: a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. J Manag Stud 48(4):899–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer AG, Palazzo G, Matten D (2014) The business firm as a political actor: a new theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business & Society 53(2):143–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz A (1982) Meaningful work. Ethics 92(4):634–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweickart D (2011) After capitalism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD

  • Schweickart D (2014) Property-owning democracy or economic democracy? In: O’Neill M, Williamson T (eds) Property-owning democracy. Rawls and beyond. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 201–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro I (2001) Democratic justice. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer A (2015) There is no Rawlsian theory of corporate governance. Bus Ethics Q 25(1):65–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas A (2017a) Republic of equals: Predistribution and property-owning democracy. Oxford University Press

  • Thomas A (2017b) Rawls and political realism: realistic utopianism or judgement in bad faith? Eur J Polit Theo 16(3):304–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Parijs P (1995) Real freedom for all. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Parijs P (2004) Basic income: a simple and powerful idea for the twenty-first century. Polit Soc 32(1):7–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice. Basic Books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane P (1985) Persons, rights, and corporations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane P (2000) Business ethics and the origins of contemporary capitalism: economics and ethics in the work of Adam smith and Herbert Spencer. J Bus Ethics 24(3):185–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein F (2009) Beyond voluntariness, beyond CSR: making a case for human rights and justice. Bus Soc Rev 114(1):125–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein F (2015) Normativity, ethics, and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights: a critical assessment. Journal of Human Rights 14(2):162–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whelan G (2012) The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: a critical research agenda. Bus Ethics Q 22(4):709–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O (2002) The theory of the firm as governance structure: from choice to contract. J Econ Perspect 16(3):171–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young IM (1979) Self-determination as principle of justice. Philosophical Forum 11(1):30–46

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the editors of Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, as well as the two anonymous reviewers, for their helpful and constructive feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik / German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Ludwigkirchplatz 3-4, 10719, Berlin, Germany

    Daniel Jacob

  2. Technische Universität Dortmund, Emil-Figge-Straße 50, 44227, Dortmund, Germany

    Christian Neuhäuser

Authors
  1. Daniel Jacob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Neuhäuser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Jacob.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

Daniel Jacob declares that he has no conflict of interest. Christian Neuhäuser, too, declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jacob, D., Neuhäuser, C. Workplace Democracy, Market Competition and Republican Self-Respect. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 21, 927–944 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9935-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9935-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation