Complexity, Difference and Identity pp 167-191 | Cite as
Corporate Identity, Responsibility and the Ethics of Complexity
Abstract
This chapter presents an analysis of corporate identity and responsibility. More specifically, it addresses the question of what the emergence of corporate identity can tell us about the nature of business ethics in practice. In the first section, the main insights gleaned from a complex understanding of identity are unpacked. In the second section, these complexity insights pertaining to identity formation are translated into the language of social systems, with the aim of determining the nature of corporate identity specifically. In the third section, the implications that this complexity understanding of corporate identity formation hold for business ethics are elaborated upon. The analysis in the third section provides both a challenge to the traditional understanding of moral responsibility within the context of business ethics, and an attempt to overcome the weaknesses of this traditional understanding. This latter aim is addressed by taking cognisance of the normative implications associated with a process of identity formation in work practices. Of particular concern and interest is how identities are demarcated in practice. As such, the analysis centres on the boundary questions that we ask (or don’t ask of ourselves) as corporate members and corporation; as well as the implications that such questions hold for how we view ourselves and our ethical responsibilities within the context of corporate practices.
Keywords
Business Ethic Moral Responsibility Identity Formation Work Practice Corporate ResponsibilityReferences
- Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. 1990. Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
- Albert, S., Ashforth, B.E. and Dutton, J.E. 2000. Organizational identity and identification: Chartering new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1): 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Anderson, R. 1999. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science, 10 (3): 216–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ashmos, D.P. and Huber, G.P. 1987. The systems paradigm in organization theory: Correcting the record and suggesting the future. Academy of Management Review, 12 (4): 607–621.Google Scholar
- Berg, D.N. and Smith, K.K. 1990. Paradox and group. In J. Gillette, and M. McCollom, (eds.), Groups in context: A new perspective on group dynamics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
- Bion, W.R. 1961. Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Chiles, T., Meyer, A. and Hench, T. 2004. Organizational emergence: The origin and transformation of Branson, Missouri’s musical theatres. Organization Science, 15 (5): 499–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and postmodernism: Understanding complex systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. 2001. Boundaries, hierarchies & networks in complex systems. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5 (2): 135–147.Google Scholar
- Cilliers, P. 2005. Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture & Society, 22 (5): 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cilliers, P., de Villiers, T. and Roodt, V. 2002. The formation of the self. Nietzsche and complexity. South African Journal of Philosophy, 21 (1): 1–18.Google Scholar
- Campbell, J.L. 2005. Where do we stand? Common mechanisms in organizations and social movements research. In G.F. Davis, D. McAdam, W.R. Scott and M.N. Zald (eds.), Social movements and organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Collier, J. and Esteban, R. 1999. Governance in the participative organisation: Freedom, creativity and ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 21: 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dyke, C. and Dyke, C. 2002. Identities: The dynamic dimensions of diversity. In P. Alperson (ed.), Diversity and community: An interdisciplinary reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 65–87..Google Scholar
- Elias, N. 1994. The civilising process. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Erskine, T. 2003. Can institutions have responsibility? Collective moral agency and international relations. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
- Freeman, E.R. 2001. Stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In W.F. Hoffman, R.E. Frederick and M. Schwartz (eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- French, P.A. 1984. The corporation as a moral person. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16: 207–215.Google Scholar
- French, P.A. 1979. Collective and corporate responsibility. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- French, P.A., Nesteruk, J. and Risser, D. 1992. Corporations in the moral community. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Frew, D.A. 1973. Pollution: Can the people be innocent while their systems are guilty? Academy of Management Review, 16 (3): 527–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hargrave, T.J. 2009. Moral imagination, collective action, and the achievement of moral outcomes. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19 (1): 87–104.Google Scholar
- Hartley, J.F. 1996. Intergroup relations in organizations. In M.A. West (ed.), Handbook of work psychology. London: Wiley, pp. 397–422.Google Scholar
- Hernes, T. 2003. Enabling and constraining properties of organizational boundaries. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
- Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Jones, C., Parker, M. and ten Bos, R. 2005. For business ethics. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Keeley, M. 1988. A social-contract theory of organizations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
- Keeley, M. 1981. Organizations as non-persons. Journal of Value Inquiry, 15: 149–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Ladd, J. 1970. Morality and the ideal of rationality in formal organizations. The Monist, 54 (4): 488–516.Google Scholar
- Kramer, R.M. 1991. Intergroup relations and organizational dilemmas: The role of categorization processes. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 13: 191–228.Google Scholar
- Luntley, M. 2003. Ethics in the face of uncertainty: Judgement not rules. Business Ethics: A European Review, 12 (4): 325–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- May, S. 1999. Nietzsche’s ethics and his war on “morality”. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- McKelvey, B. 1999. Avoiding complexity catastrophe in coevolutionary pockets: Strategies for rugged landscapes. Organization Science, 10 (3): 294–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Morin, E. 2008. On complexity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
- Nozick, R. 1981. Philosophical explanations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Painter-Morland, M. 2008. Business ethics as practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Painter-Morland, M. 2006. Redefining accountability as relational responsiveness. Journal of Business Ethics, 66: 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parker, M. (ed.) 1998. Ethics and organizations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- Paulsen, N. 2003. Who are we now?: Group identity, boundaries, and the (re)organizing process. In N. Paulsen & T. Hernes (eds.), Managing boundaries in organizations: Multiple perspectives. Hampshire, MA: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Petit, P. 2007. Responsibility incorporated. Ethics, 117: 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Quine, W.V. 1969. Ontological relativity and other essays. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Rorty, R. 1999. Philosophy and social hope. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
- Seabright, M.A. and Kurke, L.B. 1997. Organisational ontology and the moral status of the corporation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7 (4): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Sim, S. 2004. The routledge companion to postmodernism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stacey, R.D. 1995. The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16: 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stacey, R.D. 1996. Complexity and creativity in organisations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Stacey, R.D. 2001. Complex responsive processes in organizations: Learning and knowledge creation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stacey, R.D. 2003. Complexity and group processes: A radical social understanding of individuals. Sussex: Brunner-Routledge.Google Scholar
- Stacey, R.D., Griffen, D. and Shaw, P. 2000. Complexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. 1986. The social identity theory of inter-group behaviour. In S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 7–24.Google Scholar
- Thietart, R.A. and Forgues, B. 1995. Chaos theory and organizations. Organization Science, 6: 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Velasquez, M.G. 1983. Why corporations are not morally responsible for anything they do. Business and Professional Ethics Journal, 2 (3): 1–18.Google Scholar
- Verstraeten, J. (ed.), 2000. Business ethics: Broadening the perspective. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
- Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Werhane, P.H. 1999. Moral imagination and management decision making. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Werhane, P.H. 1980. Formal organizations, economic freedom and moral agency. Journal of Value Inquiry, 14: 43–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Westenholz, A. 2004. Emerging identities beyond organizational boundaries. In T.E. Jensen and A. Westenholz (eds.), Identity in the age of the new economy: Life in temporary and scattered work practices. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 122–145.Google Scholar