Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 68, Issue 3, pp 329–346 | Cite as

Social Contracting in a Pluralist Process of Moral Sense Making: A Dialogic Twist on the ISCT

  • Jerry M. Calton


This paper applies Wempe’s (2005, Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1), 113–135) boundary conditions that define the external and internal logics for contractarian business ethics theory, as a system of argumentation for evaluating current or prospective institutional arrangements for arriving at the “good life,” based on the principles and practices of social justice. It does so by showing that a more dynamic, process-oriented, and pluralist ‘dialogic twist’ to Donaldson and Dunfee’s (2003, ‘Social Contracts: sic et non’, in P. Heugens, H. van Oosterhout and J. Vromen (eds.), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts (Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd.) pp. 109–126; 1999, Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press); 1995, Economics and Philosophy 11(1), 85–112; 1994, Academy of Management Review 19(2), 252–284.) integrated social contracting theory (ISCT) of economic ethics will further develop this promising and influential approach to moral reasoning, ethical decision-making, and stakeholder governance. This evolutionary, interactive learning-based model of ethical norm generation via dialogic stakeholder engagement is particularly appropriate within economic communities that are experiencing value conflict and pressures for institutional change.


ISCT, discourse ethics, stakeholder dialogue, pluralist sense making processes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackoff R. L.(1999). Recreating the Corporation: A Design for the 21st Century. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Andriof J., Waddock S., Husted B., Rahman S. (eds) (2002). Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility, and Engagement. Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf PublishingGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvesson M., Deetz S. (1996). Critical Theory and Postmodern Approaches to Organizational Studies. In: Clegg S. R., Hardy C., Nord W. P. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. London, Sage Publications, pp. 191–217Google Scholar
  4. Benhabib S. (1990). Afterward: Communicative Ethics and Contemporary Controversies in Practical Philosophy. In: Benhabib S., Dallmayr F. (eds), The Communicative Ethics Controversy. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 330–369Google Scholar
  5. Benhabib S. (1993). Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger P. L., Luckmann T. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City NY, Anchor BooksGoogle Scholar
  7. Binmore K. (1994). Game Theory and the Social Contract: Vol. 1. Playing Fair. Cambridge, MA, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Burrell G., Morgan G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London, HeinemannGoogle Scholar
  9. Boatright J. (2000). Contract Theory and Business Ethics. A Review of Ties that Bind. Business and Society Review 105(4):52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calton J. M., Lad L. J. (1995). Social Contracting as a Trust-building Process of Stakeholder Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(2):271–295Google Scholar
  11. Calton J.M., Payne S.L. (2003). Coping with Paradox: Multi-stakeholder Learning Dialogue as a Pluralist Sensemaking Process for Addressing Messy Problems. Business & Society 42(1):7–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell D. (2003). The Relational Constitution of Contractual Agreements. In: Heugens P., van Oosterhout H., Vromen J. (eds), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd., pp. 38–65Google Scholar
  13. DiMaggio P., Powell W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 46:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donaldson T. (1996). Values in Tension. Ethics Away from Home. Harvard Business Review 74(5):48–56Google Scholar
  15. Donaldson T. (1982). Corporations and Morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  16. Donaldson T., Dunfee T. (2003). Social Contracts: sic et non. In: Heugens P., van Oosterhout H., Vromen J. (eds), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd, pp. 109–126Google Scholar
  17. Donaldson T., Dunfee T. (1999). Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Donaldson T., Dunfee T. W. (1994). Toward a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review 19(2):252–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Donaldson T., Dunfee T. W. (1995). Integrative Social Contracts Theory: A Communitarian Conception of Economic Ethics. Economics and Philosophy 11(1):85–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunfee T. W. (1991). Business Ethics and Extant Social Contracts. Business Ethics Quarterly 1:23–51Google Scholar
  21. Glynn M. A., Barr P. S., Dacin M. T. (2000). Pluralism and the Problem of Variety. Academy of Management Review 25(4):726–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gustafson A. (2000). Making Sense of Postmodern Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 10(3):645–658Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J.: 1992, Justification and Application: Remarks on Discourse Ethics (C.P. Cronin, trans.) (Cambridge MA, MIT Press).Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J.: 1990, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Lenhard, C. and S.W. Nicholsen, trans.) (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press).Google Scholar
  25. Isaacs W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in Business and in Life. New York, Currency-DoubledayGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen M. C., Meckling W. M. (1976). Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics 3:379–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson-Cramer, M. and R. Phillips: 2004, ‘Ties that Unwind: Dynamism in Integrative Social Contracts Theory’, Paper presented at Contractarian Approaches to Business Ethics: The Evolution of Integrative Social Contracts Theory, a conference sponsored by the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research, November 12–13, 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Jones T. (1995). Instrumental Stakeholder Theory: A Synthesis of Ethics and Economics. Academy of Management Review 20:404–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNamee S., Gergen K. J. (1999). Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  30. MacNeil, I.R.: 1985, ‘Relational Contracts: What We Do and Do Not Know’, Wisconsin Law Review 483–525.Google Scholar
  31. Nielsen R. (1996). The Politics of Ethics: Methods of Acting, Learning, and Sometimes Fighting with Others in Addressing Ethics Problems in Organizational Life. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Connell L. L, Stephens C. U., Betz M., Shepard J. M., Hendry J. R. (2005). An Organizational Field Approach to Corporate Rationality: The Role of Stakeholder Activism. Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1):93–111Google Scholar
  33. Payne S. L., Calton J. M. (2002). Towards a Managerial Practice of Stakeholder Engagement: Developing Multi-stakeholder Learning Dialogues. In: Andriof J., Waddock S., Husted B., and Rahman S. (eds), Unfolding Stakeholder Thinking: Theory, Responsibility and Engagement. Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf Publishing, pp. 121–135Google Scholar
  34. Phillips R.A. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco, Berrett-KoehlerGoogle Scholar
  35. Rawls J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA, Belknap PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Sheppard B. H., Sherman D. M. (1998). The Grammars of Trust: A Model and General Implications. Academy of management Review 23(3):422–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spicer A., Dunfee T. W., Bailey W. J. (2004). Does National Context Matter in Ethical Decision Making? An Empirical Test of Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Journal 47(4):610–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Swanson D. L. (1999). Toward an Integrative Theory of Business and society: A Research Strategy for Corporate Social Performance. Academy of Management Review 24(3):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Svendsen, A.C. and M. Laberge: 2005. ‘Convening Stakeholder Networks: A New Way of Thinking, Being and Engaging’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 19, 91–104.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor C. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Oosterhout, J.H., P.M.A.R. Heugens and M. Kaptein: (forthcoming), ‘The Internal Morality of Contracting: Redeeming the Contractualist Endeavor in Business Ethics’, Academy of Management Review.Google Scholar
  42. Van Willigenburg T. (2003). Sources of Normativity: Reflectivity Versus Social Contracting. In: Heugens P., van Oosterhout H., Vromen J. (eds), The Social Institutions of Capitalism: Evolution and Design of Social Contracts. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar Publishing, Ltd, pp. 127–140Google Scholar
  43. Waddell S. (2005). Societal Learning and Change: How Governments, Business and Civil Society are Creating Solutions to Complex Multi-stakeholder Problems. Sheffield, UK, Greenleaf PressGoogle Scholar
  44. Waddock S. (2002). Leading Corporate Citizens: Vision, Values, Value Added. Boston, McGraw-Hill/IrwinGoogle Scholar
  45. Walton C. (1993). Business Ethics and Postmodernism: A Dangerous Dalliance. Business Ethics Quarterly 3:285–305Google Scholar
  46. Walzer M. (1994). Thick and Thin. Moral Argument at Home and Abroad. Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Wempe B. (2005). In Defense of a Self-disciplined, Domain-specific Social Contract Theory of Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 15(1):113–135Google Scholar
  48. Williamson O. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, and Relational Contracting. New York, Free PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business & EconomicsUniversity of Hawaii at HiloHiloUSA

Personalised recommendations