Advertisement

Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 132, Issue 3, pp 579–588 | Cite as

A Few Good Companies: Rethinking Firms’ Responsibilities Toward Common Pool Resources

  • Patricia GabaldonEmail author
  • Stefan Gröschl
Article

Abstract

While a significant body of literature has highlighted the moral obligations of companies regarding the sustainable use of common pool resources, business activities that contribute to the sustenance of common pool resources remain embryonic. Studies in this area have largely focused on environmental stimuli rather than on the complex motivational structures that drive or hinder businesses’ contributions to common pool resources. We explore the different motives and behaviors of businesses and their contributions to common pool resources, and propose four roles by which companies’ motives and behaviors toward common pool resources can be categorized—namely, free riders, followers, believers, and altruists. We shift the focus from moral reasoning to Platt’s (Am Psychol 28(8):641–651, 1973) notion of social trapping and his “ways out” as Platt’s “ways out” include propositions that address not only environmental stimuli but also companies’ motives. Both types of propositions are important for businesses to be able to respond rapidly to the scarcity of certain common pool resources and to use and maintain common pool resources in a sustainable way. Based on our categorization and Platt’s typology of social traps and “ways out,” we propose a theoretical framework by which companies and other stakeholders are provided with a differentiating perspective that allows for propositions addressing the complex nature of motivational structures and common pool resources. Our framework helps business leaders, institutions, and policy makers decide on actions that can contribute to the sustainability of common pool resources and that differ from actions that solely serve organizational self-interests.

Keywords

Sustainability Common pool resources Social trapping 

Abbreviations

UNEP

United Nations Environmental Program

WCED

World Commission on Environment and Development

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the paper. They are also grateful to Dr. Lepoutre and Dr. Shymko for their for their insightful comments on the paper.

References

  1. Anderson, L., & Seijo, J. (2010). Bioeconomics of fisheries management. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Badhwar, N. K. (1993). Altruism versus self-interest: Sometimes a false dichotomy. Social Philosophy and Policy, 10(01), 90–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: “Our common future”. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
  4. Buchanan, J. M. (1965). An economic theory of clubs. Economica, 32(125), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Bettignies, H. C., Lépineux, F., & de Lamartine, A. (2005). Should multinational corporations be concerned with the global common good? An interdisciplinary exploration. Fontainebleau: INSEAD Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  6. Donaldson, T. (1982). Corporations and morality (pp. 36–58). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Drucker, P. (2010). The frontiers of management. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Google Scholar
  8. Fischer-Kowalski, M., Swilling, M., von Weizsäcker, E. U., Ren, Y., Moriguchi, Y., Crane, W., et al. (2011). Decoupling natural resource use and environmental impacts from economic growth. Nairobi: United Nations Envrionmental Programme.Google Scholar
  9. Gröschl, S. (2013). Uncertainty, diversity and the common good: Changing norms and new leadership paradigms. Burlington: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jonsen, K., Tatli, A., Özbilgin, M., & Bell, M. (2013). The tragedy of the uncommons: Reframing workforce diversity. Human Relations, 66(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khalil, E. L. (1990). Beyond self-interest and altruism. Economics and Philosophy, 6(2), 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lacy, P. (2013). The United Nations Global Compact—Accenture CEO study on sustainability 2013. New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
  14. Leal Filho, W. (2000). Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 1(1), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. López, M. M., Garcia, A., & Rodriguez, L. (2007). Sustainable development and corporate performance: A study based on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H.-J. (2002). Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature, 415(6870), 424–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  18. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of marketing, 54(4), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Brien, T. (2009). Reconsidering the common good in a business context. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Ostrom, E. (2008). Institutions and the environment. Economic Affairs, 28(3), 24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. The American Economic Review, 100(3), 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C., Norgaard, R., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E. S. Savas (Ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance (pp. 7–49). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28(8), 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schelling, T. (1971). On the ecology of micromotives. Public Interest, 25, 61–98.Google Scholar
  28. Sison, A. J. G., & Fontrodona, J. (2006). The nature of the firm, agency theory and shareholder theory: A critique from philosophical anthropology. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement: A theoretical analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  31. Velasquez, M. (1992). International business, morality, and the common good. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(1), 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IE Business SchoolMadridSpain
  2. 2.ESSEC Business SchoolCergy-PontoiseFrance

Personalised recommendations