Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 113, Issue 4, pp 611–625 | Cite as

Participating in the Common Good of the Firm

Article

Abstract

In a previous essay (Sison and Fontrodona 2012), we defined the common good of the firm as collaborative work, insofar as it provides, first, an opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, virtues, and meaning (work as praxis), and second, inasmuch as it produces goods and services to satisfy society’s needs and wants (work as poiesis). We would now like to focus on the participatory aspect of this common good. To do so, we will have to identify the different members of the firm as a community, drawing from corporate citizenship literature and stakeholder theory. Afterward, we will explore both the manner and the intensity of these different members’ participation and its impact on the firm’s common good.

Keywords

Common good Theory of the firm Aristotle Work Catholic social teaching Stakeholders Virtue ethics 

References

  1. Aristotle. (1985). Nicomachean ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (1990). In S. Everson (Ed.), The politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. (1991). Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Assländer, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as subsidiary co-responsibility: A macroeconomic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 115–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, P. M. (2000). Are Korea’s chaebol serious about restructuring? Presentation at the Korea 2000 Conference. Ruprecht-Karls Universität, Heidelberg, Germany, 30 May. Retrieved Oct 14, 2011 from http://www2.law.columbia.edu/course_00S_L9436_001/2001/chaebol2000.pdf.
  8. Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical letter. Caritas in Veritate. Retrieved Mar 20, 2013 from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_benxvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html.
  9. Boatright, J. (2000). Ethics and the conduct of business. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Bogle, J. C. (2005). The battle for the soul of capitalism. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bogle, J. C. (2011). The Supreme Court had its say. Now let shareholders decide. The New York Times, 14 May.Google Scholar
  12. Ciulla, J. (2000). The working life: The promise and betrayal of modern work. New York: Three Rivers Press.Google Scholar
  13. Clarkson, M., & Deck, M. (1998). Stockholder. In P. Werhane & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  14. Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2004). Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2003). Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. International Center for Corporate Social Resposibility (ICCSR) Research Paper Series, no 13, ISSN 1479-5116.Google Scholar
  16. Dill, W. (1958). Environment as an influence on managerial autonomy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(4), 409–443.Google Scholar
  17. Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–91.Google Scholar
  19. Faldetta, G., & Paternostro, S. (2011). The logic of gift and the bonding value: A new perspective for business management. Journal of Management Development, 30(6), 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. FINE. (2001). Retrieved Oct 8, 2011 from http://www.eftafairtrade.org/.
  21. Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The ‘I designed it myself’ effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56(1), 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  23. Freeman, R.E. (1998). Stakeholder theory. In P. Werhane & R. E. Freeman (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedic dictionary of business ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Furby, L. (1991). Understanding the psychology of possession and ownership: A personal memoir and an appraisal of our progress. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 66, 457–463.Google Scholar
  25. Hasnas, J. (1998). The normative theories of business ethics: A guide for the perplexed. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8, 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. John Paul II. (1981). Encyclical letter. Laborem exercens. Retrieved Mar 20, 2013 from http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens_en.html.
  28. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kennedy, R. (2007). Business and the common good. In P. Booth (Ed.), Catholic Social Teaching and the market economy. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, D.-W. (2003). Interlocking ownership in the Korean chaebol. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 11(2), 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim, J. -H. (2011). Chaebol seethe at Seoul’s control drive, Korea Herald, 27 April. Retrieved Oct 14, 2011 from http://www.koreaherald.com/business/Detail.jsp?newsMLId=20110427000851.
  32. Manville, B., & Ober, J. (2003). A company of citizens. What the world’s first democracy teaches leaders about creating great organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mason, R.O., & Mitroff, I.I. (1982). Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  34. Mizruchi, M. S. (2004). Berle and means revisited: The governance and power of large US corporations. Theory and Society, 33, 579–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moore, G. (2004). The fair trade movement: Parameters, issues and future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, G., Slack, R., & Gibbon, J. (2009). Criteria for responsible business practice in SMEs: An exploratory case of UK fair trade organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 89, 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Moriarty, J. (2009). Participation in the workplace: Are employees special? Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 373–384.Google Scholar
  38. Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). The ‘IKEA effect’: When labor leads to love. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 11-091, 33 pp.Google Scholar
  39. Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  40. Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It’s construct clean-up time. Human Performance, 10(2), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
  43. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sandelands, L. (2009). The business of business is the human person: Lessons from the Catholic social tradition. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(1), 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (2003). Levels of measurement and analysis issues in organizational citizenship behavior research. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 76, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schrift, A.D. (1997). The logic of gift. Toward an ethic of generosity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Sison, A. J. G. (2008). Corporate Governance and Ethics. An Aristotelian Perspective. UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Sison, A. J. G., & Fontrodona, J. (2012). The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 211–246.Google Scholar
  49. Stokes, G. (2002). Democracy and citizenship. In A. Carter & G. Stokes (Eds.), Democratic theory today. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  50. The Economist. (2010a). The chaebol conundrum, 31 March.Google Scholar
  51. The Economist. (2010b). Return of the overlord, 31 March.Google Scholar
  52. The Economist. (2011a). Asia’s new model company, 1 October.Google Scholar
  53. The Economist. (2011b). The next big bet, 1 October.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organization in Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  55. White, M. P., & Dolan, P. (2009). Accounting for the richness of daily activities. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1000–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wood, D. J., Logsdon, J. M., Lewellyn, P. G., & Davenport, K. (2006). Global business citizenship. A transformative framework for ethics and sustainable capitalism. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PhilosophyUniversity of NavarraPamplonaSpain
  2. 2.Business Ethics DepartmentIESE Business School, University of NavarraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations