Values and Economy: How Companies Deal with Values

Abstract

This contribution deals with the importance of values in business written from the practical perspective of working in the field of business ethics, and sustainability in different functions and for more than 15 years. Focusing on a practical approach, it discusses the handling of values in management and communication. It demonstrates how the concept of values originated in the economic sphere and always included the idea of ideal values insofar as they establish and regulate social relationships. The article explains why an ethical approach to corporate values, based on the normative stakeholder view, is necessary, so that values can fulfil their orientating function. Hence, corporate ethics is a suitable topic for reflection. In addition to the motivations and drivers that lead companies to deal with normative values, the contribution describes which values companies actually proclaim. While the question of an ethical assessment of motivation is not discussed in detail, the challenges companies face in their values management and communication are described. Using the example of human rights based on the value of human dignity, the contribution shows how these challenges ultimately affect the corporate context and what steps can be taken. It closes with questions at the interface between corporate ethics, values management, and legislative initiatives.

1 Introduction

‘Economy’ is a social phenomenon. If we talk about the economy in the sense of the market economy, we sometimes forget that it is an integral part of society, developed by humans, and not a separate, independent system. Economy and society are not opposites. Economy follows its own inherent economic logic; however, as a social phenomenon it is tied to the norms, rules, values, and rights of society. For this reason, I use a normative approach to values, as I want to point out the relevance of normative values for businesses, which influence corporate governance and interaction with business stakeholders. I examine the handling – or management – of values in business operations as opposed to a different understanding of values, such as the concept of brand value to differentiate a company from its competitors or as company culture, which organises the collaboration within a company. (Nevertheless, I am convinced that all these concepts are closely interconnected and influence each other.)

Therefore, I first deal with the areas of tension arising from the determination of company values and their attribution by various stakeholders. In a second step I try to justify why company values require ethical reflection. To understand companies’ handling of values I must then look at the most important drivers of the debate on a values orientation in the business context, closely connected with the debate on corporate responsibility.

From a company perspective, company values must bring a concrete benefit for the company in the market. Therefore, I describe the values that companies postulate and communicate to the outside world, what functions values fulfil, how they are categorised and managed, and what challenges arise if there is no ethical reflection.

One of the current challenges in values orientation for companies that I observe as a practitioner is the debate on the responsibility of companies to uphold and protect human rights. I therefore show why human rights as a universal catalogue of values are relevant for companies and how they affect corporations and challenge their handling of values – as well as their understanding of corporate responsibilities – on different levels. As new regulatory initiatives from the European Union (EU) have brought a new impetus in the debate, I conclude with upcoming research questions to better understand the influence of values on companies.

2 Why Values Are Relevant for Business

2.1 Thoughts on the Relation of Economy and Society and the Role of Values

The ancient Greek word ‘oikonomos’, from oikos (οἶκος: ‘house’) and nomos (νόμος: ‘rule’, ‘law’), was discussed by early philosophers such as Aristotle as a concept for considering the use of wealth in a reasonable way. Today we observe a tension between the economic sphere and the societal sphere: while economy focuses on profit and growth, society focuses on cohesion and the common good. How to reconcile the two is a longstanding question that revolves around the ever-changing expectations and demands of society places on corporations, which operate in an area of tension between social responsibility and economic success (Beschorner and Schmidt 2005). A well-known statement in this context says that ‘companies cannot be successful in societies that fail’ (anonymous).

For the sociologist Émile Durkheim, the functioning of markets is closely connected to the moral conduct of economic actors (Durkheim 1960). What orientation do companies need so that their actions take social demands into account and can thereby do justice to their role as part of society? A common understanding is that ethical values give guidance and serve as a benchmark for judging the actions of individuals and thus organisations. To be able to justify or evaluate those actions, criteria are indispensable. When we argue ethically, we regularly refer to norms, rights, values, or principles. Many ethical norms can be traced back to underlying values, which are abstract standards of orientation for individuals or organisations. They are fundamental and deeply anchored ideas about what is right in a community (Fenner 2008).

When companies orient themselves towards values that are defined by one-sided interests or goals such as profit maximisation, conflicts with their stakeholders and with society can arise. To give orientation for actions in which the multitude of social demands are taken into account, corporate values must be ethically reflected upon. There can thus be no discussion about corporate values without the concept of normative (business) ethics. Business ethics deals with the question of which moral values companies must meet in their actions. The purpose is always to improve business practice, dealing primarily with the practical impacts of and solutions for morally dubious economic activity. Specifically, it is about employees who might find themselves facing the dilemma that can arise between corporate mandate and moral action, where individual and organisational values need to be reflected upon and justified. Companies develop visions or mission statements to establish values as motivation, orientation, and a strategy tool of the company (von Groddeck 2011). However, the concept of values in economics has additional meanings.

2.2 The Concept of Values in Economics

Historically, the concept of values originated in economic life and spread through economics and philosophy to sociology. Today’s understanding of values is still predominantly associated with the economic aspect as material values (Pfeifer 1997). However, from an economic perspective, too, values have a double meaning. Adam Smith, moral philosopher and founder of modern economics, observed in his landmark publication The Wealth of Nations that there are two concepts of value: ‘value in use’ and ‘value in exchange’. The former expresses the utility of a commodity and the latter the power of purchasing other goods that the commodity carries. In addition to the price (value in exchange), value in use means to satisfy subjective needs or preferences, as a prerequisite to determine a price (Smith in Reinhold 2013). A product or service also needs objective criteria to determine its value in exchange. These are input factors such as land, capital, or labour. However, a purely objectively determined value, which arises from the properties and input factors ascribed to the good, but also the subjective relation to values, falls short of the modern economic understanding of value. Likewise, an economic definition of value, which arises from a purely subjective assessment of usefulness, and which evades external examination, is not economically justifiable (Mödritscher in Reinhold 2013).

2.3 Area of Tension: Shareholder Value Versus Stakeholder Value

From a business perspective, the concept of values is mainly associated with company value. Companies have the primary task of creating values and goods (Schüz 1999) and are themselves classified as economic goods. The actual company value arises from the interests of the respective company’s stakeholders. Companies can thus be described as a prerequisite for the material and immaterial satisfaction of the stakeholders’ benefits and needs. Since the company value results from the various stakeholder interests, companies must orient their actions towards these diverse interests. These are in turn based on different individual and societal moral concepts that the company must consider. When balancing these different interests, the economic constraints or goals are often a stronger factual imperative than are moral considerations. Since companies operate in an environment characterised by competition, the company value often only results from the evaluation of a few stakeholders – usually the shareholders, as they provide (risk) capital for a financial return. The guiding principle of the underlying management concept – the shareholder value – is profit maximisation, as this will also maximise the shareholder return.

In recent years, the shareholder value paradigm has become a subject of increasing criticism for its one-dimensionality and short-termism, which are said to undermine sustainability at the expense of, for example, the wellbeing of the employees, the environment, or a healthy development of a firm (Ulrich 2008; Thielemann 2010). A study¹ commissioned by the European Commission in 2020 concluded, for example, that there is a ‘trend for publicly listed companies within the European Union (EU) to focus on short-term benefits of shareholders rather than on the long-term interests of the company’ (European Commission 2020a: vi). Data analyses indicate, for example, an upward trend in shareholder pay-outs as well as a declining ratio of capital expenditures (CAPEX) and research and development (R&D) investment to revenues since the beginning of the twenty-first century. It is then argued that short-term time horizons that fail to capture the full extent of long-term sustainability risks and impacts could amount to ‘overwhelming environmental, social and economic consequences for companies, shareholders, investors, and the society at large’ (European Commission 2020b).

This also shows that the shareholder versus stakeholder and short-term versus long-term approaches create areas of tension and conflict in several ways: The interests and moral standards of different stakeholders may not be adequately taken into account; and the understanding of short-term versus long-term decisions in a company may be completely differently interpreted.

2.4 The Normative Stakeholder View

Therefore, the question of the legitimate claims of stakeholders² needs to be looked at more closely to understand how, why, and which stakeholders are addressed by companies. An approximation can be found in the stakeholder value concept. It assumes that companies, especially large corporations, have great impact on the living realities of the people who are affected by the actions of companies (Parmar et al. 2010). Therefore, a company needs the legitimation of its stakeholders. There are two perspectives on stakeholder management: the strategic approach integrates all stakeholders in the overall strategy of the firm to maximise profits; the normative approach, on the other hand, asks which stakeholder interests are legitimate and therefore makes an ethical claim, which poses a challenge for the ethical management of a company. In addition to the question, ‘Which values should the company create?’, the questions, ‘For whom should values be created?’ and, ‘Who has to bear the internal and external costs of the value creation process?’, have to be answered (Ulrich 2008: 474).

The normative stakeholder view addresses the fundamental role and function of the company in society based on moral principles and offers guidelines for the decision-making of the company management. The main assumptions of the stakeholder theory are justified by normative principles: (a) stakeholders are persons or groups with legitimate interests in procedural and/or substantial aspects of corporate activities. They are identified by their interest in the company, regardless of whether the company has a corresponding interest in them. And (b) the interests of all stakeholders have intrinsic value. This means that each stakeholder group deserves consideration for itself and not just for means-end considerations (Donaldson and Preston 1995). This is why corporate actions must be subjected to ethical reflection.

2.5 The Relevance of an Ethical Foundation for Company Values

The noticeable social pressure, which in the worst case can lead to boycotts or strikes, for example, initially creates an extrinsic motivation for companies to meet the demands of more responsible action. A one-sided orientation towards economic values such as profit maximisation makes a proclaimed socially responsible behaviour implausible. If concepts that are meaningful in terms of their objectives to promote corporate social responsibility (CSR) are then misused as a strategic tool to promote sales or improve the company’s image, without taking into account the claims of other stakeholders, companies will lose their credibility and social trust. For companies to be able to fulfil their responsibility to meet social demands, they must be considered in the company’s action orientation – for example, in the corporate values. To find a consensus on a common value base between company and society, a level is needed on which the respective moral and value concepts can be reflected. This level of reflection is ethics.

To be relevant in practice, it is necessary to further discuss the term legitimacy. Peter Ulrich, Swiss economist and the founder of integrative business ethics, proposes a view where ‘legitimacy establishes a relationship between raised claims, an intended action or regulation on the one hand and the moral rights of all concerned on the other hand’ (Ulrich 2008: 251). Principles such as justice and freedom as criteria must be considered in such a way that the moral justification of a claim raised, or of an action taken or not taken, is reasonable and compatible with real life and its consequences. Therefore, a legitimate action considers all consequences and safeguards the moral rights of all affected. The consequences of legitimate actions can be justified as ‘responsible’ or ‘reasonable’ to all those affected (Ulrich 2008: 251).

It makes clear that values, and particularly shareholder value, need an ethical perspective to justify the legitimacy of a business enterprise – and that this is in the self-interest of a company. If a company loses its social legitimacy, it will not only lose its ‘raison d’être’ as a social actor, but also its business foundation. It becomes apparent too that values have an orientation function for companies. Since it is the meaning of companies to create added value (regardless of the management approach), they must comply with the demands of those who attribute values to companies. This does not yet result in ethical corporate values. For this purpose, the claims of those who evaluate the company must be ethically legitimised. To conclude, it can be said that company values are considered ethically legitimised if the intended actions arising from their orientation function do not limit the moral rights of others.

In summary: From a macroeconomic point of view, values primarily have the function of satisfying needs. In the context of business administration and strategic decision-making, it becomes clear that the interests and demands of a company’s stakeholders define the value of the company. Since it is the task of a company to create added value, stakeholder claims also have a normative character for entrepreneurial activity.

2.6 Drivers and Influencing Factors for the Value Debate in the Corporate Context

There are various reasons behind the impetus to discuss values in their normative function in the corporate context. Companies carry out business in increasingly complex framework conditions that change faster and more unpredictably than ever before. Against the background of longstanding developments such as demographic change or multiple crisis phenomena such as global warming, declining biodiversity, growing inequality, or the COVID-19 health crisis, the discussion about the importance of values in general as well as their relevance in and for companies is steadily increasing.

Values such as trust and responsibility in the context of markets and corporate actions experience a renaissance in public debate whenever they become an issue. So, on a macro level, the call for values is often the response to crisis and conflicts. The Volkswagen emissions scandal and the accounting scandal of the German fintech company Wirecard are among the latest examples – both wrongdoings wiped out large amounts of financial value. Furthermore, the negative effects of globalisation (poverty, human rights violations, ecological degradation, and exploitation of natural resources) are a long-running issue.

The financial crisis in 2008 that subsequently led to a crisis of confidence in the financial system and its institutions was also a strong driver in the value debate,³ as lack of morality was identified as a possible explanation for the economic crisis in general and especially for the 2008 financial crisis (Katona 2020). This crisis in confidence paradoxically spurred on increasing expectations of companies too. The findings of the Edelman Trust Barometer⁴ 2021 state that ‘business is not only the most trusted institution (…), but it is also the only trusted institution with a 61% trust level globally, and the only institution seen as both ethical and competent’ (Edelman Trust Barometer 2021). Market failures, market crises, and the negative impacts of corporate actions as well as increasing expectations on businesses are the most important reasons for the claim to act morally and in a value-based manner.

Another driver is the notion of values as a success factor. Research consistently shows that values play an important role in shaping an individual’s personal and professional ethos (Treviño et al. 2006) and ultimately their decision-making and behaviour in the corporate context. The interest of managers is therefore directed towards making values visible and usable as indispensable success factors – especially as an adequate reaction to public outcry in times of scandal. There is a growing interest in value-based concepts such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Corporate Citizenship, and Shared Value or Ethical Investment, as well as in value management (von Groddeck 2011). While on the one hand value-oriented practices are increasing in companies, on the other hand sceptical reactions can be observed too. To treat values as a success factor – as a means to an economic end – is criticised as morally flawed (von Groddeck 2011). At this point it should be noted that companies can only operate as companies. However, it shows again that an ethical approach to values is key to the credibility and legitimisation of a company.

In addition, the promotion of European values in and through the economy as well as through regulation drives the debate. Critics believe that the concept of European values could give the impression that the European Union is building a monopoly of values that it seeks to impose (Weymans, Chap. 3, this volume). In fact, the European Commission invokes the concept of European values in documents directed at businesses – for example, in the communication concerning CSR (A business contribution to sustainable development) (European Commission 2002) or in its trade strategy (Trade for all), in which explicit reference is made to the need to ‘promote and defend European values’ (European Union 2015: 7).

Finally, the societal shift in values – more precisely the change in attitudes towards certain values – drives the debate and thus the reactions of companies. The political scientist Roland Inglehart (2018) argues that post-materialistic values such as self-actualisation or personal autonomy moved to the forefront in most industrialised countries after the Second World War. Consequently, values such as freedom of expression, environmental protection, tolerance, and equality featured increasingly in political and social discourse. The World Values Survey shows that the proportion of materialists has decreased compared to post-materialists (Inglehart 2018). Sociologist Andreas Reckwitz (2017) links the value of self-actualisation with a trend to singularity, which he describes as striving for uniqueness and exceptionality, not just as a subjective wish, but as a paradoxical social expectation. Accordingly, ‘21st century men’ always strive for the extraordinary to realise themselves, if this serves to secure their social status. This is also true where, on the one hand, companies try to build a strong brand image externally, while at the same time they singularise themselves internally in order to be an attractive employer for potential and existing employees and to retain them in the long term (‘double singularization’, Reckwitz 2017).

The European Values Study (EVS) also shows a change in values. In the area of ‘work expectations’, however, it notes the impression over a period of 30 years that the expectations concerning work ‘have evolved very little’, whereas when the motivational factors – separated into ‘intrinsic’ factors (content of work, on what work enables a person to achieve) and ‘extrinsic’ factors (material advantages the work brings) – are observed, it also supports a post-materialist interpretation of the motivation for work: ‘when the economic development of a country progresses, its population seeks less material satisfaction and places emphasis on personal fulfilment and collective responsibility’ (Tchernia 2017: 129).

Looking at the Austrian results of the EVS 2017 in the area of ‘work and family’ (Verwiebe and Seewann 2019), it appears that gainful employment plays a less important role in people’s lives according to the values of ‘family’, ‘friends and acquaintances’, and ‘free time’. Gainful employment does not become secondary, but the desire for a better balance between life and work is growing. In the results of the Austrian survey, the central value of ‘work’, with 48% compared to ‘free time’ with 46%, almost balances out. In the results of the survey 10 years earlier, the ratio between work (54%) and free time (44%) was clearly different.

Europe-wide, the central value of ‘work’, determined as the importance of work in life, was considered ‘very important’ by 53% of those surveyed across 22 European countries⁵ compared to 56% in 2009. However, the results differ from country to country. In the period from 1990 to 2017 the importance of work in life in Austria declined strongly by more than ten percentage points from 61% to 49%. While similar developments can be observed in some other countries such as Czechia (decline from 60% to 50%), Norway (73% to 63%), or Denmark (with an even stronger decline from 51% to 36%), in some countries the importance of work in life increased. In Germany ‘work’ became slightly more important (44% to 46%), while in Italy a stronger increase can be observed (62% to 74%), similar to Spain (64% to 71%) and Portugal (35% to 45%). The other central value, ‘family’, shows a different picture. The ‘importance of family in life’ increased Europe-wide between 1990 and 2017 from 82% to 78% across the 22 countries. Except for the Netherlands (where the importance of family declined slightly by one percentage point), an increase – on a high level – can be observed in all other countries. These data also underpin the social desire for a better balance between gainful employment and family.

Companies react in their business strategies as well as in their communication strategies to the value shift in society. This can be observed in the way companies address their customers with ‘fair’ and ‘organic’ products and potential employees with flexible working hours or career planning and planning of life phases, or in the way they openly take positions on social developments such as climate change, gender issues, or sustainable development in general.

2.7 Religion as Source for Company Values?

In my practical experience religion – or in particular – Christian values as a source of values in companies seems to play a subordinate role. One of the reasons for this could be that in secular communities belief is seldom made public in professional life. However, values play a role at the level of the individual in the company, especially with executives. In the past few years, platforms for networking, further education, and inspiration for value-oriented leadership that relate to the Christian faith and its values have emerged in German-speaking countries. Examples include the Association of Catholic Entrepreneurs⁶ (Bund Katholischer Unternehmer - BKU) in Germany, whose members come mainly from family businesses, the working group of Protestant entrepreneurs, also in Germany, or the Forum of Christian Executives in Austria.⁷ (Forum christlicher Führungskräfte). There are also Christian professional networks, for example the German Association of Catholic Lawyers. The objectives of these organisations are similar in that they promote value-oriented leadership in the sense of Christian values and support their members to orient themselves to Christian values in everyday business life – even in dilemma situations.

It cannot be concluded from the (in some cases long-term) existence of these organisations that religion and Christian values are systematically used as a source of orientation in companies. However, the thesis can be put forward that, on the individual level of managers, who describe themselves as Christians, these values play a role in their understanding of leadership.

In the area of family-owned businesses, this thesis is supported by Astrachan et al. (2020), for example, who describe and analyse the role religious values and spirituality play in the formation of organisational ethical practices in faith-led family firms. In an article published in 2020 they state from their research that ‘the inclusion of morally binding values such as religious – or in a broader sense, spiritual – values fundamentally alter organizational decision-making and ethical behaviour’ and that ‘[s]uch beliefs are often rooted in the founder’s religious convictions that are conveyed through generations, permeating the business and shaping organizational values and culture’ (Astrachan et al. 2020).

3 The Challenge of Dealing with Values

As noted, companies are not value-free spaces. The demands on companies to act in a socially responsible, ethical manner are high. The management of material and ideal values has thus become a central challenge for corporate management. Contemporary management understands value-based management as an important design element in the company that contributes significantly to economic success.

3.1 The Benefits of Values for Corporations

In a corporate logic, values must contribute to the success of the company in a market economy – that is, they must be useful, regardless, at least at first, of which value is stated or whether a company is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to act in a value-based way. The benefits of an ethical value orientation, however, are evident in several areas: it secures the very foundations of entrepreneurial freedom and competitiveness under global conditions; and it addresses human beings holistically. It can also fill the void of generally binding valid (ethical) value orientations, which is closely connected to a compensation for an economic and socio-political framework through voluntary self-commitment, for example, in order to avoid regulations and thus ensure entrepreneurial freedom (Kleinfeld 2003). The normative function of values can also help companies to prevent undesirable behaviour by employees.

3.2 Value Functions in Companies

Values have different functions (Polak & Schuster, Chap. 6, this volume). Apart from their orientation function, they have a motivational function. They have a regulatory function, because they regulate behaviour in a society and are accepted as binding. Values have an explanatory function, as they explain the actions of individuals or organisations and how these actions lead to ‘social transformation processes’ (von Groddeck 2011: 39). To justify and rationalise actions of individuals or organisations, values also have a legitimation function. At this point, they convey a ‘why’. Corporate values make visible what a company means by ‘the ethical good’ the company wants to strive for with its activities beyond the business logic (Schmidt in Beschorner and Schmidt 2005). From the perspective of management, more functions of values are named: values create identity, focus, unity, and motivation. They articulate the ethical attitude of a corporation and help to build trustful relationships between a company and its stakeholders and thus strengthen the company culture (Yeldar Radley 2010).

A survey of 3000 family businesses from 53 countries by the consultancy service PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC 2018) shows that corporate values are becoming more important in employer branding. Accordingly, around three quarters of the family businesses considered in the survey state corresponding values, with 73% using their values to promote the company brand for employees and applicants in the so-called ‘war for talent’ (PwC 2018: 8). From the perspective of applicants too, corporate values are highly relevant. According to the recruiting platform Glassdoor (Glassdoor’s mission & culture survey 2019), the majority of adults across four countries (US, UK, France, Germany) would consider a company’s culture (77%) and a company’s mission and purpose (79%) before applying for a job, and 73% would not apply to a company unless the company’s values aligned with their own personal values (Glassdoor 2019). The ‘International Index of Corporate Values’ by the agency network Ecco (2013) questioned more than 3000 employees in five countries and more than 4300 companies in 13 countries about corporate values. The results show that 98% of the companies state corporate values and that corporate values are important for 80% of the employees because these values have an orientation function as well as a business benefit (Ecco 2013).

The results of these studies show that, at least conceptually, efficiency or profitability and ethical value orientation are no contradiction in terms. Integrity in the sense of compliance with the law plus alignment to ethical values is seen as the basis for trust and credibility and thus an indispensable basis for entrepreneurial success. As such, integrity is becoming a competitive factor. However, this conceptually constructible win-win situation depends on how values are dealt with in the company – how they are communicated and brought to life. A clear statement of what a company values, together with evidence of how this guides business practice, will help to build trust with stakeholders. A random approach, where values are not clearly defined, have not undergone a normative reflection process, or are a mere strategic approach, can lead to the abuse of values as a means to improve the interaction of companies with society and their expectations of businesses – with negative effects for both actors, such a greenwashing allegations, loss of customer confidence, or damage to reputation and image.

3.3 Which Corporate Values?

Many companies openly refer to their corporate values on their websites, in reports (for example, annual reports and corporate sustainability reports), or in management tools such as ethics codices or corporate governance codices. Companies also refer to their importance for management, internal actions, and external relationships. Most companies have so far communicated rather traditional values – such as respect, performance, responsibility, or trust – in their mission statements.

The PwC (2018) study shows that honesty, integrity, sustainability, respect, and employee orientation are particularly important. In the International Index of Corporate Values (Ecco 2013), values innovation, quality, and customer satisfaction can be found at the top of the value scale, followed by integrity, environment, and expertise. A study by the British communication agency Yeldar Radley (2010) analysed the value communication of FTSE 100 companies in the public domain regarding the concepts that lie behind the communication, the wording of the communication and the communication channels the companies used. The research found that out of the FTSE 100 companies, 75 stated values publicly. Altogether, 332 values were expressed in more than 200 different ways, which were then allocated to 37 clusters according to synonymous meanings. The top ten value clusters, ranked top to bottom, are: integrity (35 mentions), teamwork (28), respect (24), customer (23), innovation (16), trust (15), people (15), performance (13), openness (12), and responsibility (12). Most of the FTSE 100 companies used the term ‘values’ to describe their moral standards. Companies used the word ‘values’ either on its own or as part of a compound phrase (such as ‘core values’) or by turning the noun into a verb (such as ‘we value’). A smaller number of businesses chose ‘principles’ as a synonym, usually in the context of a phrase like ‘our guiding principles’ or ‘our business principles’ (Yeldar Radley 2010).

In looking at these proclaimed corporate values, it becomes clear that they are of different quality and situated on different levels. Therefore, in a corporate context there are efforts to classify values according to their quality or intention to ‘manage’ them. On a business level, this is implemented through value management systems.

3.4 Value Management

The term ‘value management’ has found its way into corporate management in recent years, mostly in the sense of corporate responsibility. Schüz, for example, defines value management as ‘the skilful handling of values, which not only does justice to the individual values but also the vital needs of the social and natural environment’ (Schüz 1999: 37). Accordingly, value management has two meanings, the management by values and management of values. Today, it is widely accepted that responsible corporate management must be based on moral values and demands and, at the same time, no longer solely on the morals of individuals; rather, it must be systematised. However, the virtues of the individual – their moral convictions – are crucial pillars of successful value management – together with the moral quality of the company as an organisation with systematised processes, incentives, control mechanisms, and leadership culture. An effective and sustainable value management thus supports organisational and individual morale and the implementation of values. As a company-specific instrument, a value management system defines the core values of the company and helps to bring them to life in business practice. The value management system provides moral criteria for screening cooperating partners and internal and external stakeholders. It is thus part of strategic management (Wieland and Schmiedeknecht 2010).

Another function of value management is that of risk prevention, as it can address potential areas of tension between legality and legitimacy as well as illegality and illegitimacy across all hierarchy levels. This is based on Luhmann’s system-theoretical concept of risk, in which risks that have been taken based on a conscious decision are assigned to an actor who must also take responsibility for them (Fürst 2005).

Further areas of application of value management lie in organisational change processes (for example, mergers and acquisitions, cultural change processes, corruption prevention, project management, diversity management). Several instruments of value management have emerged over the years, including codes of ethics, vision and mission statements, codes of conduct, purchasing policies, personnel selection policies, and action guidelines for sensitive business areas.

3.5 Value Communication

While value management should ensure that the company values serve as a binding orientation in the face of increasing competition, corporate communication should convincingly represent the company’s actions and strategy, maintain and strengthen trust in a company or brand, and ultimately convince more people of the value of a company. In summary, while value management should create integrity through the consistency of processes, communication should ensure that actions and processes are perceived as consistent. In practice, corporate communication is a business function to achieve corporate success and is therefore largely dominated by marketing thinking. When values are communicated, problems of credibility can often be observed, which can damage the value orientation and reduce trust.⁸ In connection with a company’s value orientation and value communication, it is therefore necessary that communication management and value management relate to one another. For example, they need a common conceptual basis – the value management provides the strategic statements and arguments for communication (Behrent 2004).

In the field of value communication, it can be observed that companies must be able to connect to many heterogeneous demands in their surroundings. They must do this in a way that enables them to stay open towards their stakeholders and at the same time minimise potential contradiction or rejection. This practice of communicating values suggests security in a time of uncertainty and transition (von Groddeck 2011).

As noted above, companies communicate their values openly on their websites and in their reports. However, it is important that managers understand the diversity of values in general as well as their company’s values when they are communicating them and engaging with different stakeholders. Therefore, it is useful to categorise values to make their quality visible – and in the end improve their management.

3.6 A Question of Handling: Categorising Company Values

From a purely strategic (management) point of view, values can be subdivided according to the intended use. Wieland (2004) offers a practice-oriented categorisation of values. He differentiates between four categories: performance values, communication values, cooperation values, and moral values. Performance values include benefit, competence, willingness to perform, flexibility, creativity, innovation orientation, and quality. They serve the achievement of strategic business goals. Communication values include respect, belonging, openness, transparency, understanding, and willingness to take risks. They relate to open communication both inside and outside the company. Cooperation values include loyalty, team spirit, conflict management, openness, and communication orientation. They primarily concern behaviour within the company. Integrity, honesty, fairness, contractual loyalty, and responsibility are understood as moral values. They relate to behaving with integrity and fairness.

A practical approach suggests organising company values according to their intention in communicating them internally and externally into another four categories. First, core values are the principles that guide all company’s actions and serve as its cultural cornerstone. They must be maintained at all costs, as they are the source of a company’s distinctiveness. Second, aspirational values are those a company needs if it is to succeed in the future, but which it currently lacks. These values need to be carefully managed to ensure that they do not dilute the core. Third, permission-to-play values reflect the minimum behavioural and social standards required of any employee. And fourth, accidental values arise without being cultivated by leadership and take hold over time. These values usually reflect the common interests or personalities of the organisation’s employees (Lencioni 2002). Yeldar Radley (2010) proposes another categorisation with three clusters: behaviour, where values like ‘responsibility’, ‘openness’, and ‘courage’ all describe how an organisation’s employees should act; focus, where companies think of values as a way of signposting what they believe is important (‘customer’, ‘safety’, and ‘environment’); and belief set, such as ‘diversity’, ‘trust’, and ‘honesty’.

Awareness of the implicit and explicit values that guide the corporation’s activities is essential, however. Two questions arise in this context. First, how are the values of a company developed? Second, are these values handled differently according to their categorisation? Regarding the development – or rather definition – of company values, three approaches exist in theory: a top-down approach (definition by the board or management); a bottom-up approach (definition based on a discussion process integrating employees and managers); or a mixed approach, where a first draft by the board is discussed and amended by employees before it is finalised (Frey in Niedermeier 2014). In practice, however, external service providers such as public relations or consulting agencies often develop company values that complement a marketing and communication strategy with appropriate formulation (Lotter and Braun 2009).

Regarding a differentiated approach to values, the evidence lies in the practical handling of values. The consequence of a practice of not putting too much of an effort into the development of company values is a superficial handling of those values. Values are defined and further stated in codices, guidelines, or regulations as to which actions are expected. The actual actions and implementations only partially correspond to these recorded descriptions, however. A quote from von Groddeck (2011) proves that values in a company do more than evoke positive associations:

Transparency, trust, respect, openness, commitment and integrity. Values play an important role in the communication practices of organizations. Superfluous, irrelevant, too abstract, window dressing and lies – at the same time this form of communication provokes scepticism and cynicism and creates moral expectations. (von Groddeck 2011: 12).

3.7 Challenges for Normative Value Management

Values are used to describe the organisation as a uniform identity. At the same time, however, the organisation must be capable of adapting to changes in society and society’s changing values’ hanging values to be successful in a competitive environment. As a result, values are (sometimes unconsciously) instrumentalised and communicated opportunistically (von Groddeck 2011). This is a challenge for normative value management. Can companies even deal with values in an ethically correct and integrated manner in a constantly changing value environment? And how?

The prerequisite for any further work with values is firstly to be aware of the different types of values and secondly to deal with them seriously (normatively). All stakeholders can relate to values particularly well when it is clear what they mean for the company. Therefore, there must be a co-developed understanding of each value, which consequently excludes a top-down definition of the company values.

It is important to deal with values of different types differently. This means, for example, handling the values from Wieland’s (2004) category of performance, which mainly serve the achievement of strategic business goals, in a way that is different from the handling of values from the moral value category, which describe desirable behaviour.⁹

One conclusion is therefore that value management – that is, finding suitable measures and instruments for the practical implementation of values and defining responsibilities – is not enough on its own to prevent instrumentalisation. Therefore, values must be subjected to ethical reflection. This is particularly important in the case of moral values such as the claim that companies should act in accordance with human rights, which gain relevance in the current debate on the role of companies in society – especially in globalisation.

3.8 The Categorical Imperative as an Ethical Principle Against Instrumentalisation and as a Justification for Human Rights

For the philosopher Immanuel Kant, intrinsic human worthiness is based on the capacity for practical reasoning, especially the capacity for autonomous self-legislation under the categorical imperative: ‘Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law’ (Kant 1996: 31).

In his view, the only way to make sense of the human will as the foundation of a universal moral law is to conceive human beings as ends in themselves. This idea is expressed in the second formulation of the categorical imperative: ‘So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means’ (Kant 1996: 38). Thus, Kant presents ‘dignity’ as the opposite of ‘price’: while price is a value for which there can be an equivalent, dignity makes a person irreplaceable. Therefore, the notion of human dignity expresses a requirement for the non-instrumentalisation of persons.

According to international law, the relationship between human dignity and human rights is situated between a foundational principle of equal respect for every human being and the concrete norms that are needed to make that principle in social life concrete. Human rights derive from human dignity. The notion of human dignity attempts to respond to the question, ‘Why do human beings have rights?’ The answer is that they are entitled to rights precisely because they possess intrinsic worth (Andorno 2014).

4 Human Rights as Universal Normative Values for the Economy

4.1 What Are Human Rights?

In this fundamental sense, human rights are an ethical approach and pronouncement as to what should be done (Sen 2009). Human rights can be understood as moral concepts and thus moral rights, as they address claims that are directly connected to the basic possibility of living a human life in dignity. Human rights, as the most important and fundamental category of moral rights, therefore, protect those freedoms that are most essential for a dignified and self-determined human life (Sen 2004). Because of their fundamental nature, they are pre-positive and pre-political rights, neither dependent nor based on their codification into positive law (Wettstein 2012).

Today, the concepts of human dignity and human rights are of fundamental importance to the constitutions, legal frameworks, and legal systems of modern society. Human rights are egalitarian and pre-state rights that all people are inherently entitled simply because they are human beings. They claim respect, protection, and compliance by state or supranational sovereignty. They are universal, inalienable, indivisible, and interdependent (Fremuth 2020). They apply per definition to all people worldwide. The United Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 in particular has made the concept of human rights universal and contributed greatly to its dissemination into legal systems around the world. The UDHR does not have a binding status under international law. Nevertheless, many of its contents have been incorporated into national constitutions. Other parts, such as the prohibition of torture and slavery, have long been mandatory in international law. In order to make parts of the human rights declaration more effective, the UN passed two human rights pacts in 1966. The civil pact regulates civil liberties and political rights, protecting the right to freedom of expression, freedom of information, and freedom of assembly, for example. The social pact, in turn, includes economic, social, and cultural rights. According to this, people have the right to work, to education, and to an adequate standard of living, among other things.

4.2 Human Rights as a Catalogue of Values

Modern international law recognises every person as a subject who can demand that the state guarantee their human rights. Human rights also have a meaning that is detached from the rights holders: They establish a value system. A state that recognises and respects human rights is thus integrated into a system of internationally prevailing values. This can also apply to organisations, as stipulated, for example, in Article 2 of the Treaty of the EU, which describes respect for human dignity and the protection of human rights as values:

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail. (TEU: Art. 2)

Although the criticism has been made that values outside the law have been made into to a protected good and used for interpretation, the idea that human rights are also an expression of values has prevailed. This can be observed, for example, in the allegation that the West wants to use human rights to impose its values on other cultural areas (Fremuth 2020).

4.3 Relevance for the Economy: Why Should Companies Deal with Human Rights?

Current global developments influence the discussion about human rights. In particular, the question of the role of companies to respect human rights is debated. States are the primary addressees of human rights; they also have a monopoly on law enforcement. This is true for supranational organisations such as the EU too. With the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which came into effect with the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, the EU has one of the most modern human rights documents in the world. However, can private persons – human beings or legal persons – be addressees of human rights too? The basic rule is that human beings hold human rights but are not bound by them. It is argued that the binding of private individuals to human rights is rejected because this could endanger their character and effectiveness, so most of international human right documents do not include human rights duties (Fremuth 2020).

However, for many years there has been a discussion about the binding of companies, especially multinational enterprises¹⁰ (MNEs), to human rights. Their activities along their supply chains and their production methods affect human rights in a variety of ways such as working conditions, health or environmental impacts, or exploitation of natural resources. In the accelerating globalisation process, states are said to be losing power to fully control social, economic, and even political processes. Against this background, the effectiveness of the state as the sole protector of human rights has been questioned. Consequently, the call for extending human rights responsibility to non-state actors in general and into the private sphere in particular has become louder as numerous cases of human rights abuses committed by MNEs, particularly in countries with a weak governance and poor law enforcement, have become public (Wettstein 2012).

Even though human rights do not bind MNEs directly, there are approaches that justify a soft liability of human rights principles for corporations, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (OECD 2011). As already stated, the respect for human rights by corporations can be justified from an ethical perspective too. Wettstein states:

The very question of why and to what extent the international human rights regime should include also private actors is crucially dependent on ethical reflection. However, what such questions rarely address is the fundamental moral nature of human rights obligations as something that matters independently and irrespective of their implementation or enforcement. (Wettstein 2012: 744)

He argues further that the benchmark against which the human rights conduct of companies should be judged cannot comprise legal or political conceptions only – or strategic considerations (because it is allegedly good business to uphold human rights). It is necessary to also include the moral dimension of human rights for the derivation of corporate human rights obligations of companies (Wettstein 2012).

4.4 Normative Frameworks Addressing Companies to Respect Human Rights and Their Function

In the late 1990s, following some high-profile allegations of corporate involvement in human rights abuses, the UN Commission on Human Rights began to explore the relationship of business and international human rights obligations. This led to the appointment of Professor John Ruggie as Special Representative on the responsibilities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises with regard to human rights. His work produced a framework that has since become the state-of-the-art model in the debate on business and human rights: The UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights (United Nations 2011). In 2008 Ruggie proposed a three-pillared policy framework: (1) the state duty to protect against human rights abuses; (2) the corporate responsibility to respect human rights; (3) access to effective remedy for victims of human rights abuse. This framework has since influenced the debate on business and human rights as well as the revision of other internationally recognised normative documents aimed at companies, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises or the Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.

The OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises were first negotiated in 1976 in a comprehensive international consultation process between company representatives, trade unions, non-governmental organisations, and governments, and were contractually agreed between the governments of the OECD countries and several other countries. They are recommendations to globally active corporations and provide non-binding principles and standards for responsible business conduct (RBC) in a global context consistent with applicable laws and internationally recognised standards, as well as practical support to enterprises on their implementation. The voluntariness of the guidelines is relativised by the publicity effect and the contractual obligations of the states. Today, the guidelines encompass nine areas: employment and industrial relations, human rights, the environment, information disclosure, anti-corruption, consumer interests, science and technology, competition, and taxation. In their current version of 2011, they include a duty of care and responsibility for the conduct of foreign business partners (OECD 2011). Since 2011, sector guidance documents have been developed, which address MNEs in areas such as the extractive sector, the garment sector, and the agricultural sector. Furthermore, certain high-risk areas are covered, such as child labour or conflict minerals.

The Tripartite Declaration of Principles Concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy – the so called MNE Declaration was first negotiated 1977 between workers’ organisations and employers’ organisations and governments, adopted by the governing body of the International Labour Office (ILO) in 1977, and amended in 2000 and 2006, with a revision in 2017. It covers areas such as employment, training, conditions of work and life, and industrial relations. All principles build on international labour standards, which are laid down in the eight fundamental ILO conventions and recommendations.¹¹ The preamble of the declaration refers to the contribution of corporations to basic human rights, and the declaration sets out principles and recommendations, which governments, employers’ organisations, and workers’ organisations, as well as multinational enterprises, should follow on a voluntary basis (International Labour Office 2017).

In addition, the United Nations Global Compact (2000), launched by the UN in 2000, is an orientation instrument for corporations regarding human rights. It is based on the self-interest and voluntary commitment of the participating companies to respect, implement, and promote ten fundamental sustainability principles in the four areas of human rights, labour norms, environmental protection, and the fight against corruption. The compact is a business network and explicitly refers to the companies’ value systems and the need of a principles-based approach (United Nations Global Compact 2000).

The ILO Declaration and the OECD Guidelines are the leading international instruments developed and formally adopted by governments and formally supported by business and workers’ organisations. The UN Global Compact is an international initiative developed by intergovernmental organisations. Those three are the most frequently mentioned and used in the guidance documents produced by companies. The fact that they stand out from all other instruments or initiatives because of their direct connection to government and the strong commitment on the part of business and employee organisations is important (OECD Secretariat 2009).

4.5 Anchoring European Values in the Economic and Trade Policies

Besides the normative frameworks, some of which are presented above, values such as human rights are promoted and transported in trade relations between states. The EU, with its relatively young self-image as a community of values (Weymans, Chap. 3, this volume), has committed to promote its European values – including human rights – vis-à-vis non-EU members. One of its instruments is the EU economic and trade policy. In 2015, the EU presented a new trade strategy – Trade for all (European Union 2015) – with a strong focus on trade and investment. One of the main pillars of this strategy is to base trade policy on EU values such as human rights, sustainable development, and fair trade. The EU has thus made clear that it wants to reinforce corporate social responsibility initiatives and due diligence across the production chain, with a focus on the respect of human rights and the social – including labour rights – and environmental aspects of value (European Union 2015). In addition, in 2016 the EU presented its new Global Strategy on Foreign and Security Policy for the European Union (European Union 2016), which states explicitly that not only are migration and trade or energy security important, but the promotion and the export of its values and principles are important too.

This is one of the reasons why the EU is often perceived as a normative actor that has several mechanisms in the economic policy area available to follow this strategy, such as trade agreements and trade preference programmes, foreign trade agreements, or even development aid (Niezen 2017). This has also led to policy fields that were previously treated separately becoming increasingly interwoven as a result of the horizontal character of values and human rights. The European Commission is taking action in different policy areas to promote decent work in global supply and value chains and has announced further measures. These policies include trade; development cooperation; labour and human rights dialogues and policies; sectoral policies; neighbourhood policies; and measures related to corporate responsibility, public procurement, corporate reporting, sustainable finance, due diligence in conflict minerals supply chains, the environment, and consumer policies. This has direct influence on business enterprises.

4.6 Current Developments in Europe and Legislative Initiatives

As part of the system change in Europe, it is widely acknowledged that the economic and financial system is a central driving force behind ecological and digital change. To promote sustainable and responsible behaviour by companies in the long term, the EU is in the process of developing a legislative proposal on sustainable corporate governance, which deals, among other things, with human rights, ecological due diligence, and due diligence across all economic supply and value chains. In the past few years, several European countries, as well as the EU, have already adopted or started to consider legislation that embeds elements of human rights due diligence (HRDD) into law.¹² Other European institutions, United Nations bodies, and international organisations have discussed or acknowledged the need for binding regulation to promote the implementation of HRDD and to improve access to justice for victims of corporate-related human rights abuses. This type of regulation is also gaining support from parts of the business community, which considers it a means to help them better implement their responsibility to respect human rights and secure a more level playing field in international competition (Business & Human Rights Resource Center 2020).

The notion of the European Green Deal, proclaimed as Europe’s ‘man on the moon moment’ in December 2019 by European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen (Lory and McMahon 2019), has set in motion several legislative and regulatory projects directly addressing companies and their governance. The Green Deal is not just limited to environment and climate policy, but encompasses several projects aimed at improving the governance of companies in dealing with their social responsibility and with human rights (European Commission 2019).

The most important proposed legislation initiatives in this context concern mandatory due diligence legislation regarding human rights and the environment in combination with promoting sustainable corporate governance as well as the revision of the non-financial reporting directive of 2014. Both initiatives are in the process of preparation. Based on the consultation process (European Commission 2020a) as well as draft documents, certain conclusion can be drawn as to what to expect for the businesses.¹³

• 1. Due diligence duty. The Commission planned to present a combined proposal on due diligence duty and sustainable corporate governance already in 2021, however due to disagreements concerning regarding the scope as well as proportionality of some of the drafted measures the proposal has been delayed until 2022. The preliminary drafts on mandatory due diligence legislation are designed to address companies of all sizes and will not be restricted to MNEs. The proposal sets out a horizontal mandatory corporate due diligence duty to identify, prevent, and mitigate against adverse human rights, health, social, and environmental impacts in all sectors and covering the value chains. It also combines elements of transparency (reporting requirements), enforcement, and liability measures (including fines and banning from public procurement). The covering of all tiers of the supply chain means that companies will be obliged to check sub-suppliers, their sub-suppliers, and so on too. This means that a company needs to have mechanisms, processes, and instruments in place to identify risks of human rights violations, prevent such violations, and guarantee access to remedy. This will pose a huge challenge, as supply chains are networks with ever-changing suppliers depending on multiple different products and their ingredients. In addition, the civil liability of companies is suggested, so that companies that do not exercise all due care to avoid damage from negative effects on human rights, the environment, or responsible corporate governance can be obliged to pay compensation. Several European countries already have national laws in place (France, the UK, Germany) or draft bills published (the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland).

• 2. Sustainable corporate governance. The proposed law intends to clarify that company directors should take into account the long-term interest of the company itself as well as the interests of all stakeholders alongside the interest of shareholders as part of their duty of care to act in the interests of the company. It will require directors to integrate sustainability risks, opportunities, and impacts into the business strategy; it will require directors to set targets on how they plan to meet environmental goals; it will provide for more long-term focus in directors’ remuneration by potential caps on variable remuneration and by linking them to sustainability goals; it will potentially limit corporate pay-outs and give legal standing to stakeholders (shareholders with at least 1%, trade unions, NGOs) to enforce the new obligations.

• 3. Corporate sustainability reporting directive (former non-financial reporting directive). EU law requires large companies with more than 500 employees to disclose certain information on how they operate and manage social and environmental challenges. The intention is to help investors, consumers, policymakers, and other stakeholders to evaluate the non-financial performance of large companies and encourage them to develop a responsible approach to business. The revision of the corporate sustainability reporting directive will expand the scope of the companies obliged to disclose information in so-called non-financial information. At present, about 10,000 companies across the EU are covered, and this will expand to around 50,000 companies, which will have to report their standards in detail. Non-financial information includes environmental protection; social responsibility and treatment of employees; respect for human rights; anti-corruption and bribery; and diversity on company boards in terms of age, gender, and educational and professional background.

In this context, what the concrete formulation of the legal text looks like is less important than what role companies are assigned in dealing with European values and human rights.

5 Analysis and Conclusion

5.1 Challenges for Companies and Politics

In order to generate (added) value for companies and society in a time of transformation and changing values, it is necessary for companies, as part of society, and specifically their owners and leading managers, to deal seriously with their normative values. Values in the corporate context have experienced a boom for years, have been brought to life to a certain extent through approaches such as CSR, corporate citizenship, or social investment, and have found their way into strategy work. At the same time, expectations of companies to address social injustices and environmental degradation are growing steadily. There are certainly paradoxes. On the one hand, companies – representing the prevailing and often contested market economy system – are used as a point of attack as a result of recurring scandals in which they are involved. On the other hand, according to the Edelman Trust Barometer (2021), trust in companies is high and currently exceeds trust in politics (without a corona effect). However, this should be treated with caution – depending on which political aspect you are looking at (parties, government, etc.). At the same time, it is often forgotten that a social practice – and a company is nothing else – is always exposed to the intrinsic pressures of its social position. It must not be forgotten that a company with economic goals that include profit orientation will always act from in economic logic.

This means that when dealing with values, companies are on the one hand exposed to and driven by the values of a society, and thus to the prevailing – and changing – morality, norms, demands, desires, and attitudes. On the other hand, companies, or their owners and managers, determine company values arising from different motivations. From an ethical perspective, which served as the starting point of this contribution, it is in any case necessary that companies subject their discussion of values, their value proposition, and their communication to an ethical reflection, and that they legitimise this – at least in theory – for their stakeholders (including their shareholders). If the examination of values is mainly carried out for strategic reasons – and this can happen unconsciously – and without at least a simple distinction between moral values and strategic values, the company could be exposed to numerous risks. These range from damage to image and reputation to employee turnover and legal sanctions. In this context, value management can also be understood as preventive risk management.

For companies, this means that they are challenged in two ways. A review of their management of values and their ethical reflection on the one hand seems urgently needed. Ultimately, this is an undertaking that can only be addressed as an appeal to company owners (for example, shareholders) and the board of directors. This is a cultural as well as an ethical task. It is further expected that, due to current global developments, the pressure of expectations and demands on companies ‘to be a part of the solution’ will continue to increase. Companies must therefore also deal strategically with their values.

At the same time, numerous developments are currently emerging at the European level, which are already challenging companies today and will continue to challenge them in the coming years at the value level. This is evident in current legal developments, where regulatory pressure builds up, which is regularly politically justified by human rights and European values. Human rights as an essential value system of a global society are currently at the centre of developments that aim to anchor in law the responsibility of companies to respect human rights, to review human rights, and to prevent human rights violations in their sphere of influence. The European legislature goes far in its proposals to intervene in the company law of the member states and thus in the principle of subsidiarity – which is also a core value of the European community.

Dealing with a responsibility to uphold human rights within the company’s sphere of influence and across national borders is not only an administrative or technical challenge, but also a moral one. For policymakers and lawmakers, it will be crucial to balance high aspirations in terms of protecting human rights and credibly upholding European values with designing an actionable regulation that enables companies worldwide to improve the human rights situation without too great an administrative burden. The long-standing discourse on the role of companies in society, their moral responsibilities and duties, and the role of politics as a norm setter, will certainly keep the topic of values and value orientation live.

5.2 Future Research Questions

In this context, further research seems necessary to better understand the interaction and influence of the change in values in society and the value orientation, management, and communication of companies. Possible research questions are:

• How do societal (or religious) values relate to company values and influence them? While the existing and proclaimed values of companies have been analysed, it is less clear what their intrinsic and moral sources are. One assumption is that company values are primarily determined by external developments and expectations or for strategic reasons. The value orientation and value development in owner-managed companies and, above all, their sustainability over time, is certainly an interesting research approach too.

• How and in which areas do changing values influence companies and their values? While companies systematically analyse general trends – including value developments such as environmental awareness – for their strategic marketing, it is less clear whether they also orient their strategies to societal values and attitudes. One interesting research field is employer branding and a ‘value fit’ of employees to the company culture in the context of diversity.

• Where do religious values play a role in economics? Research shows that religion can play an essential role in company values in family-owned businesses. Here, the belief of owners or executives influences decision-making and the implementation of leadership tasks. However, a research gap seems to exist on the correlation of how religious values influence economics, economic strategies, and policies. Especially interesting would be how religious values translate into the (moral) values that companies proclaim.

Lastly, how can values be developed and operationalised in a company in an ethical way? Existing frameworks of value management focus on categorisation, codification, and communication of a company’s corporate values. It seems that they miss an important step from an ethical perspective – the continuous reflection and adaption of all corporate processes and policies in terms of certain values. It would thus be useful to develop a conceptual framework or to complement existing value management frameworks with an ethical procedure.