Skip to main content
Log in

Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test

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

Abstract

Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer’s (Harv Bus Rev 89(January–February):64–77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the ‘separation thesis’ between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89–118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541–548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of ‘sympathy’, we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashraf, N., Camerer, C. F., & Loewenstein, G. (2005). Adam Smith, behavioral economist. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(3), 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, D. (2011). Capitalism for the long term. Harvard Business Review, 89(March), 54–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bassiry, G. R., & Jones, M. (1993). Adam Smith and the ethics of contemporary capitalism. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 621–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • BBC. (2010). Tracing the bitter truth of chocolate and child labour. Accessed November 6, 2011, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8583000/8583499.stm.

  • Bevan, D., & Werhane, P. (2011). Stakeholder theory. In M. Painter-Morland & R. Ten Bos (Eds.), Business ethics and continental philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, J. D. (1995). ‘Adam Smith’s invisible hand argument. Journal of Business of Ethics, 14, 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility—The failing discipline and why it matters for international relations. International Relations, 19, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., McWilliams, A., Matten, D., Moon, J., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunfee, T. W., Smith, C. N., & Ross, W. T., Jr. (1999). Social contracts and marketing ethics. Journal of Marketing, 63(3), 14–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Financial Services Authority. (2011). Product intervention. Discussion Paper 11/1, January.

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). ‘The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1999). Divergent stakeholder theory. The Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 233–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R., & McVea, J. (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic management. Darden Working paper No. 01-02. Accessed February 2, 2012, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.263511.

  • Ghemawat, P. (2011). The cosmopolitan corporation. Harvard Business Review, 89(May), 93–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J., & Freeman, R. E. (2008). The impossibility of the separation thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbroner, R. (1973). The paradox of progress: Decline and decay in the wealth of nations. Journal of the History of Ideas, 34(2), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbroner, R. (1982). The socialization of the individual in Adam Smith. History of Political Economy, 14(3), 427–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbroner, R. (1996). Teachings from the worldly philosophy. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, W. (2010). Them and us: Changing Britain—Why we need a fair society. London: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaletsky, A. (2010). The pay gap is putting democracy in danger. The Times, Wednesday, November 10, p. 29.

  • Maon, F., Lindgreen, A., & Swaen, V. (2009). Designing and implementing corporate social responsibility: An integrative framework grounded in theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 71–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milberg, W. (2004). The Robert Heilbroner problem. Social Research, 71(2), 235–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, R. (2011). Ditch the discounts. Harvard Business Review, 89(January–February), 23–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbert, S. L. (2003). Realizing the spirit and impact of Adam Smith’s capitalism through entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(January–February), 64–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poundstone, W. (2011). Priceless: The hidden psychology of value. Oxford: One World.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidenbach, R., & Robin, D. P. (1991). A conceptual model of corporate moral development. Journal of Business Ethics, 10, 273–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1962). Economic philosophy. London: C.A. Watts and Co. Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). ‘Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2009). Introduction to the theory of moral sentiments. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1987). Bounded rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (Vol. 1, pp. 266–268). New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1759 [1976]). The theory of moral sentiments (A. L. Macfie & D. D. Raphael, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Smith, A. (1776 [1976]). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (R. H. Campbell & A. S. Skinner, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Smith, N. C. (1995). Marketing strategies for the ethics era. Sloan Management Review, 36(4), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48, 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steger, U. (2004). The business of sustainability. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Steger, U. (2006). Inside the mind of the stakeholder. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steger, U. (2008). Future perspectives of corporate social responsibility, where we are coming from? Where are we heading? In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten, J. Moon, & D. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. (1971). Smith’s travels on the ship of state. History of Political Economy, 3(2), 265–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. (2011). Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. Accessed April 27, 2011, from http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=2.

  • Szmigin, I., Hackley, C., Bengry-Howell, A., Griffin, C., & Mistral, W. (2011). Social marketing in a culture of intoxication. European Journal of Marketing, 45(5), 759–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington Post. (2011). Australian government proposes what it says are world’s toughest tobacco promotion laws. Accessed July 10, 2011, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/australian-government-proposes-what-it-says-are-worlds-toughest-tobacco-promotion-laws/2011/07/05/gHQA4p3lzH_story.html.

  • Werhane, P. H. (1991). Adam Smith and his legacy for modern capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (2000). Business ethics and the origins of contemporary capitalism: Economics and ethics in the work of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer. Journal of Business Ethics, 24, 185–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks, A. (1996). Overcoming the separation thesis: The need for a reconsideration of SIM research. Business and Society, 35(1), 89–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. (1985). The economic institution of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the referees for their insightful suggestions which we believe greatly clarified our argument and enhanced our understanding of the foundations in Adam Smith

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabelle Szmigin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Szmigin, I., Rutherford, R. Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test. J Bus Ethics 114, 171–182 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1

Keywords

Navigation