Cordial Big Data: Managing the Cordial Dimension of a Business

  • Patrici Calvo
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 55)


The big data era represents a challenge for businesses, but also a great opportunity for them. Big Data, and increasingly advanced, versatile and accessible data analysis tools, offer businesses the chance to develop and systemise extraordinary quantities of data from many and varied sources, as well as providing their stakeholders with relevant information based on it. This is opening up new prospects for the management of cordial goods. Among other things, it allows businesses to develop new communication channels capable of collecting specific, detailed, continuously updated information on their economic, social and environmental impacts; the legitimate interests and expectations at stake; on the level of trust, reputation and affinity they arouse among their stakeholders; and on the affective factors stimulated by their actions and decisions, among many other things. The purpose of this chapter is to propose guidelines for designing a monitoring system which, based on the communication, storage and processing of big data and the committed participation of stakeholders, offers businesses the possibility of inspecting their underlying dimensions of morality, emotions and responsibility.


  1. Anders, Günther. 1980. Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen 2. Über die Zerstörung des Lebens im Zeitalter der dritten industriellen Revolution. Munich: C. H. Beck [English vertion: Anders, Günther. 1980. The Obsolescence of Man, Volume II: On the Destruction of Life in the Epoch of the Third Industrial Revolution].Google Scholar
  2. Boffey, Philipp M. 1971. Nader and the scientists: A call for responsibility. Science 171 (3971): 549–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowen, Howard R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of Businessman. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  4. British Standards Institute. 2008. BSi Whistleblowing Arrangements Code of Practice. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  5. Brown, S. Lori, Roselie A. Bright, and Dale R. Tavris, eds. 2007. Medical Device Epidemiology and Surveillance. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Calvo, Patrici. 2015a. Economía ética hermenéutica-crítica y su gestión en las organizaciones. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia 20 (71): 534–553.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 2015b. Responsabilidad social ético-discursiva: el papel del whistleblowing en la emergencia y desarrollo de los bienes cordiales. Neumann Business Review 1 (2): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. 2016a. Economía con sentido moral. Un sistema de monitorización y gestión de la ética para las empresas y organizaciones. Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía 50: 211–248.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2016b. Whistleblowing ante la miseria moral de instituciones y organizaciones. In Empresa, Derechos Humanos y RSC. Una mirada holística desde las Ciencias Sociales y Jurídicas, ed. J. Víctor Meseguer and Manuela Avilés, 135–153. Cizur Menor: Aranzadi Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2016c. Hacía una economía cordial. Veritas. Revista de Filosofía y Teología 35: 29–56.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2017. Ética de las cosas ante el desafío de la Industria 4.0. Corresponsables. Accessed 14 Dec 2017.
  12. COM 366 Final. 2001. Green Paper. Promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  13. Cortina, Adela. 1996. Comités de ética. In Cuestiones morales, ed. Osvaldo Guariglia, vol. 2, 291–306. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, Keith. 1960. Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review 2 (3): 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 1973. The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. The Academy of Management Journal 16 (2): 312–322.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1975. Five propositions for social responsibility. Business Horizons 18 (75): 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, Keith, and Robert L. Blomstrom. 1966. Business and Its Environment. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Edelman Berland. 2015. Trust Barometer 2015. Global Annual Study. Edelman Berlan. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  19. ———. 2016. Trust Barometer 2016. Global Annual Study. Edelman Berland. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  20. ———. 2017. Trust Barometer 2017. Global Annual Study. Edelman Berland. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  21. Elkington, John. 1994. Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review 36 (2): 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. ———. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. European Council. 2000. Lisbon European Council. Presidency Conclusions. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  24. Feenstra, Ramón A. 2012. Democracia monitorizada en la era de la nueva galaxia mediática. La propuesta de John Keane. Barcelona: Icaria.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2015a. Activist and citizen political repertoire in Spain: A reflection based on civil society theory and different logics of political participation. Journal of Civil Society 11 (3): 242–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ———. 2015b. El potencial transformador de la democracia monitorizada a debate: contextualización teórica y diálogo con John Keane. Revista Teknokultura 13 (2): 639–654.Google Scholar
  27. Feenstra, Ramón A., Simon Tormey, Andreu Casero-Ripollés, and John Keane. 2017. Refiguring Democracy: The Spanish Political Laboratory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholders Approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  29. García-Marzá, Domingo. 1994. Asesoría Ética En La Empresa: Hacia Un Nuevo Concepto de Empresa. In Ética de La Empresa, ed. Adela Cortina, 123–144. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  30. ———. 2004. Ética empresarial: del diálogo a la confianza. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2017. From ethical codes to ethical auditing: An ethical infraestructura for social responsibility communication. El profesional de la información 26 (2): 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Global Reporting Initiative. 2014. G4 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  33. González-Esteban, Elsa. 1999. La empresa ante sus grupos de intereses: Una aproximación desde la literatura del análisis de los stakeholders. Papeles de Etica, Economía y Dirección 4: 1–13.Google Scholar
  34. ———. 2001. La responsabilidad moral de la empresa. Una revisión de la teoría de Stakeholder desde la ética discursiva. Castellón de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2002. Defining a post-conventional corporate moral responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 39: 101–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. ———. 2007. La teoría de los Stakeholders. Un puente para el desarrollo práctico de la ética empresarial y de la responsabilidad social corporativa. Veritas. Revista de Filosofía y Teología 2 (17): 205–224.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 2012. Perspectiva de los grupos de interés en la RSE. In Responsabilidad Social Empresarial. México: Pearson.Google Scholar
  38. Gracia, Diego. 2015. Mejoramiento humano ¿de qué estamos hablando? In El mejoramiento humano: avances, investigaciones y reflexiones ética y políticas, ed. César Ortega, Andrés Richard, Víctor Páramo, and Christian Ruíz, 20–30. Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
  39. Grupo de Trabajo del Artículo 29 sobre Protección de Datos. 2006. Dictamen 1/2006 elaborado por el Grupo de Trabajo del Artículo 29 sobre Protección de Datos (EUWP). Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  40. International Organization for Standardization. 2010. Norma ISO 26000: 2010. Genova: ISO.Google Scholar
  41. Kocovic, Petar, Reinhold Behringer, Muthu Ramachandran, and Radomir Mihajlovic, eds. 2017. Emerging Trends and Applications of the Internet of Things. Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  42. Lozano, José Félix. 2004. Códigos éticos para el mundo empresarial. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 2007. Códigos éticos y auditorías éticas. Veritas. Revista de Filosofía y Teología 2 (17): 225–221.Google Scholar
  44. Miceli, Marcia P., Janet P. Near, and Terry Morehead-Dworkin. 2013. Whistle-Blowing in Organizations. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Monasterio, Aníbal. 2017. Ética Algorítmica: Implicaciones Éticas de Una Sociedad Cada Vez Más Gobernada Por Algoritmos. Dilemata. Revista Internacional de Éticas Aplicadas 24: 185–217.Google Scholar
  46. Nader, Ralph, Peter Petkas, and Kate Blackwell, eds. 1972. Whistle Blowing. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  47. Ortega, José y Gasset. 1958. ¿Qué es la filosofía? Madrid: El Arquero. Revista de Occidente.Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1960. Origen y epílogo de la filosofía. Madrid: El Arquero. Revista de Occidente.Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1967. The Origin of Philosophy. New York: Northon & Company.Google Scholar
  50. Oxford English Dictionary. 2017. Cordial. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  51. Post, Linda F., and Jefrey Blustein. 2015. Handbook for Health Care Ethics Committees. 2nd ed. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Reitaku University Business Ethics and Compliance Research (R-bec). 1999. A Guidance Document for the Implementation of the Ethics Compliance Standard 2000 (ECS2000 V1.2). Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  53. Rodríguez, María P., Carlos F. Castaño, Valentina Osorio, Héctor F. Zuluaga, and Verónica Duque. 2006. La auditoría ética: herramienta para fortalecer la integridad del carácter organizacional. Innovar. Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales 16 (27): 25–46.Google Scholar
  54. Roldán, Concha. 2015. Leibniz. En el mejor de los mundos posibles. Barcelona: Bonalletra Alcompas.Google Scholar
  55. Sarbanes-Oxley Act. 2002. Public Law. No. 107–204, 116 Stat. 745 (July 30, 2002). USA.
  56. Standards Australia International Committee. 2003. Australian Standard AS8000. Sydney: SAIC.Google Scholar
  57. Suárez-Gonzalo, Sara. 2017. Big social data: límites del modelo notice and choice para la protección de la privacidad. El profesional de la información 26 (2): 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tascón, Mario, and Arantza Coullaut. 2016. Big Data y el Internet de las cosas. Madrid: Catarata.Google Scholar
  59. Tirole, Jean. 2017. Economics for the Common Good. Trans. S. Rendall. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. United Nations. 2011. UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. New York/Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2015. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. Accessed 25 Sept 2017.
  62. Vandekerckhove, Win. 2006. Whistleblowing and Organizational Social Responsibility: A Global Assessment. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  63. Yager, Ronald R., and Jordán-Pascual Espada, eds. 2017. New Advances in the Internet of Things. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  64. Zamagni, Stefano. 2013. Impresa responsabile e mercato civile. Il Mulino: Bologna.Google Scholar
  65. ———. 2014. El reto de la responsabilidad civil de la empresa. Mediterráneo Económico 26: 209–225.Google Scholar
  66. ———. 2017. Economics as if ethics mattered. In Economics as a moral science, ed. Peter Rona and Laszlo Zsolnai. Belind: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrici Calvo
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat Jaume ICastellón de la PlanaSpain

Personalised recommendations