Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Overcome Structural Injustice? Social Connectedness and the Tenet of Subsidiarity

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

Abstract

Referring to the phenomenon of structural injustice resulting from unintended consequences of the combination of the actions of many people, Iris Marion Young claims for a new understanding of responsibility. She proposes what she calls a social connection model of responsibility which assigns responsibility to individuals also for participating in ongoing structural and social processes. To remedy structural injustice Young claims for collective action of various actors in society and assigns different degrees of responsibility depending on the agent’s position within the structural process. However, although Young mentions power, privilege, interest, and collective ability as parameters influencing the degree of an actor’s responsibility to contribute to structural change she does not elaborate which responsibilities concern which groups in society. As we will outline in our contribution, we hold the tenet of subsidiarity to be a useful supplement to the conception of Iris Marion Young which would allow for assigning such responsibilities to different layers in society. However, since the tenet of subsidiarity is only a supple principle which does not distinguish between different kinds of duties, we propose to enrich the tenet of subsidiarity by the Kantian conception of perfect and imperfect duties.

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

References

  • Arendt, H. (1973). The origins of totalitarianism. Orlando: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (1994). Organized guilt and universal responsibility. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Essays in understanding 1930–1954 (pp. 121–132). New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, H. (2003). Collective responsibility. In H. Arendt (Ed.), Responsibility and judgement (pp. 147–158). New York: Schocken Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2009). Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aroney, N. (2007). Subsidiarity, federalism and the best constitution: Thomas Aquinas on city, province and empire. Law and Philosophy, 26(2), 161–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aroney, N. (2014). Subsidiarity in the writings of Aristotle and Aquinas. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 9–27). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aßländer, M. S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility as subsidiary co-responsibility: A macroeconomic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aßländer, M. S. (2012). Corporate or governmental duties? CSR as subsidiary co-responsibility. In D. Melé & C. Dierksmeier (Eds.), Human development in business—Values and humanistic management in the encyclical Caritas in veritate (pp. 117–133). Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan: Houndsmill.

  • Aßländer, M. S., & Curbach, J. (2014). The corporation as citoyen? Towards a new understanding of corporate citizenship. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(4), 541–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aßländer, M. S., & Curbach, J. (2017). Corporate or governmental duties? Corporate citizenship from a governmental perspective. Business and Society, 56(4), 617–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagnoli, C. (2006). Humanitarian intervention as a perfect duty: A Kantian argument. In T. Nardin & M. S. Williams (Eds.), Humanitarian intervention (pp. 117–140). New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri, W. A. Jr. (2001). Beyond the nations: The expansion of the common good in Catholic Social Thought. The Review of Politics, 63(4), 723–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, C., & Ferracioli, L. (2013). Young on responsibility and structural injustice. Criminal Justice Ethics, 32(3), 247–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calder, T. (2010). Shared responsibility, global structural injustice, and restitution. Social Theory and Practice, 36(2), 263–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carozza, P. G. (2003). Subsidiarity as a structural principle of international human-rights law. The American Journal of International Law, 97(1), 38–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin, J. (1997). Subsidiarity: The concept and the connections. Ethical Perspectives, 4(2), 117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero, M. T. (2009). On duties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, E., & Ramus, T. (2012). The Italian economia aziendale and Catholic Social Teaching: How to apply the common good principle at the managerial level. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and Citizenship. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curbach, J., & Aßländer, M. S. (2014). Corporate citizenship, from corporate bourgeois to corporate citoyen. In R. C. Chandler (Ed.), Business and corporate integrity, 2 Vols. (Vol. 1, pp. 33–52). Santa Barbara: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erskine, T. (2001). Assigning responsibilities to institutional moral agents: The case of states and quasi-states. Ethics and International Affairs, 15(2), 67–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erskine, T. (2014). Coalitions of the willing and responsibilities to protect: Informal associations, enhanced capacities and shared moral burdens. Ethics and International Affairs, 28(1), 115–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. (2013). The principle of subsidiarity as a social and political principle in Catholic social teaching. Solidarity: The Journal of Catholic Social Thought and Secular Ethics, 3(1), 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fasterling, B., & Demuijnck, G. (2013). Human rights in the void? Due diligence in the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(4), 799–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, B. (2011). The duty to oppose violence: Humanitarian intervention as a question for political philosophy. Review of International Studies, 37(3), 1045–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosepath, S. (2005). The principle of subsidiarity. In A. Føllesdal & T. Pogge (Eds.), Real world justice. Grounds, principles, human rights, and social institutions (pp. 157–170). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyer, P. (2010). The Obligation to be virtuous: Kant’s conception of the Tugendverpflichtung. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(2), 206–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, H. (2009). The global consequence of participatory responsibility. Journal of Global Ethics, 5(1), 43–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, H. (2013). Iris Marion Youngs Modell politischer Verantwortung. In P. Niesen (Ed.), Zwischen Demokratie und globaler Verantwortung (pp. 77–92). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, T. E. (1999). Happiness and human flourishing in Kant’s ethics. Social Philosophy and Policy, 16(1), 143–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Höffe, O. (2007). Democracy in an age of globalization. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, E., Davis, C., & Burton, S. (2016). From food desert to food oasis: The potential influence of food retailers on childhood obesity rates. Journal of Business Ethics, 139(2), 215–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaspers, K. (2000). The question of German guilt. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, T. (1829). In Th. Jefferson Randolph (Ed.), Memoir, correspondence, and miscellanies from the papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 Vols (Vol. 1). Charlottesville: F. Carr & Co.

  • Kant, I. (1891). Principles of politics. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2013). The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, L., & Saner, H. (1993). (Eds.). Hannah Arendt—Karl Jaspers: Correspondence 1926—1969. Orlando: Harcourt Brace & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, A. (1905). The life and works of Abraham Lincoln, 12 Vols (Vol. 2,2). New York, NY: Anglo-American Authors’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2009). The Cosmopolitical Corporation. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(3, Suppl.), 361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 166–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlroy, D. H. (2003). Subsidiarity and sphere sovereignty: Christian reflections on the size, shape and scope of government. Journal of Church and State, 45(4), 739–763.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2005). Exploring the principle of subsidiarity in organizational forms. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 293–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2017). Subsidiarität und Partizipation. In M. S. Aßländer & B. Wagner (Eds.), Philosophie der Arbeit (pp. 489–509). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. C. (2005). Need, care and obligation. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 57, 137–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moggach, D. (2009). Freedom and perfection: German Debates on the state in eighteenth century. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 1003–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nell-Breuning, O. V. (1964). Christliche Soziallehre. Mannheim: Pesch-Haus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nell-Breuning, O. V. (1990). Baugesetze der Gesellschaft. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Néron, P.-Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuhäuser, C. (2014). Structural injustice and the distribution of forward-looking responsibility. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XXXVIII, 232–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, O. (2001). Agents of justice. Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2), 180–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohreen, D. E., & Petry, R. A. (2012). Imperfect duties and corporate philanthropy: A Kantian approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(3), 367–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osuji, O. K. (2015). Corporate social responsibility, Juridification and globalization: ‘Inventive interventionism’ for a ‘paradox’. International Journal of Law in Context, 11(3), 265–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2006). Corporate legitimacy as deliberation. A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 71–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, B., & Zwolinski, M. (2012). The ethical and economic case against sweatshop labor: A critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(4), 449–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, P. (1979). Federalism in Kant’s political philosophy. Publius, 9(4), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rommen, H. (1955). The state in Catholic Thought. St. Louis: Herder Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotter, J. P., Airike, P.-E., & Mark-Herbert, C. (2014). Exploring political corporate social responsibility in global supply chains. Journal of Business Ethics, 125(4), 581–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & 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. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrempf, J. (2014). A social connection approach to corporate responsibility: The case of the fast-food industry and obesity. Business & Society, 53(2), 300–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tempels, T., Blok, V., & Verwij, M. (2017). Understanding political responsibility in corporate citizenship: Towards a shared responsibility for the common good. Journal of Global Ethics, 13(1), 90–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Til, K. A. (2008). Subsidiarity and sphere-sovereignty: A match made in…. Theological Studies, 69(3), 610–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waschkuhn, A. (1995). Was ist Subsidiarität? Ein Sozialphilosophisches Ordnungsprinzip: Von Thomas von Aquin zur “Civil Society”. Wiesbaden: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, L. D. (2014). The relationship between sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity. In M. Evans & A. Zimmermann (Eds.), Global perspectives on subsidiarity (pp. 49–63). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wettstein, F. (2010). The duty to protect: Corporate complicity, political responsibility, and human rights advocacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 33–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, H. (2010). Towards a Kantian theory of international distributive justice. Kantian Review, 15(2), 43–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2003). Political responsibility and structural injustice. In The Lindley Lecture. Lawrence: University of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2004). Responsibility and global labor justice. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(4), 365–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2006). Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1), 102–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Scribal Abbreviations

  • CA: John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus Annus, Encyclical on the hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 1st of May 1991. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • CV: Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical-Letter Caritas in Veritate, on Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, 29th of June 2009. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • LS: Francis. (2015). Laudato Si, Encyclical Letter on Care for our Common Home, 24th of May 2015. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • MM: John XXIII. (1961). Mater et Magistra, Encyclical on Christianity and Social Progress, 15th of May 1961. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • PCJP: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • PT: John XXIII. (1963). Pacem in Terris, Encyclical on Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity, and Liberty, 11th of April 1963. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • QA: Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo Anno, Encyclical on Reconstruction of the Social Order, 15th of May 1931. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

  • RN: Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum Novarum, Encyclical on Capital and Labor, 15th of May 1891. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Institute Zittau, Technical University Dresden, Markt 23, 02763, Zittau, Germany

    Michael S. Aßländer

Authors
  1. Michael S. Aßländer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael S. Aßländer.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aßländer, M.S. How to Overcome Structural Injustice? Social Connectedness and the Tenet of Subsidiarity. J Bus Ethics 162, 719–732 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3985-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3985-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation