Corporate Responsibility in a Mediatized World: Institutional Ethics and the Question of Consumer Sovereignty

  • Michael LitschkaEmail author
Part of the Ethik in mediatisierten Welten book series (EMW)


This chapter questions the relevance of the concept of ‘consumer sovereignty’ in mediatized worlds on the theoretical basis of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. The ability to choose and make use of media offerings is dependent on the encompassing concept of ‘media capabilities’—and not on any rational choice actions by individuals. Following these arguments, responsibility in a world of mediatized institutions must (beneath being attributed to individual actors) also be borne by institutions like media companies. This ‘corporate’ responsibility has three components, all of them with communicative implications. Lastly, the role of media and media organizations in enabling better-informed participation in democratic processes by assisting in ‘interpersonal’ comparisons of utility is briefly examined.


Consumer sovereignty Mediatized organizations Media capabilities Corporate responsibility Interpersonal comparison of utility Rational choice 


  1. Adolf, M. (2011). Clarifying mediatization: Sorting through a current debate. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3(2), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Christians, C. G. (2007). Utilitarianism in media ethics and its discontents. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(2–3), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doyle, G. (2002). Understanding media economics. Los Angeles: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Freeman, E. R., & Evan, W. M. (1993). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In G. D. Chryssides & J. H. Kaler (Eds.), An introduction to business ethics (pp. 254–267). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Göbel, E. (2006). Unternehmensethik. Grundlagen und praktische Umsetzung. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.Google Scholar
  6. Hepp, A. (2016). Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft in datengetriebenen Zeiten. Publizistik, 61(3), 225–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hepp, A., Hjarvard, S., & Lundby, K. (2015). Mediatization: Theorizing the interplay between media, culture and society. Media, Culture & Society, 37(2), 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karmasin, M. (2016). Die Mediatisierung der Gesellschaft und ihre Paradoxien. Wien: Facultas.Google Scholar
  9. Karmasin, M., & Litschka, M. (2008). Wirtschaftsethik. Theorien, Strategien, Trends. Wien: LIT.Google Scholar
  10. Karmasin, M., & Litschka, M. (2017). CSR as an economic, ethical, and communicative concept. In S. Diehl, M. Karmasin, B. Mueller, R. Terlutter, & F. Weder (Eds.), Handbook of integrated CSR communication (pp. 37–50). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz, E., & Foulkes, D. (1962). On the use of the mass media as escape. Clarification of a concept. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26(3), 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communication. Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–31). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Kiefer, M. L., & Steininger, C. (2014). Medienökonomik. München: Oldenbourg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krotz, F., & Hepp, A. (2011). A concretization of mediatization. How mediatization works and why ‘mediatized worlds’ are a helpful concept for empirical mediatization research. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 3(2), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Litschka, M. (2015). Medien-Capabilities als polit-ökonomisches Konzept in der Medienethik. Theoretische Grundlagen und mögliche Anwendungen. Communicatio Socialis, 48(2), 190–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Litschka, M., & Karmasin, M. (2012). Ethical implications of the mediatization of organizations. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 10(4), 222–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moser, H. (2010). Einführung in die Medienpädagogik. Aufwachsen im Medienzeitalter. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Noll, B. (2002). Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik in der Marktwirtschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  19. Ortmann, G. (2002). Regel und Ausnahme. Paradoxien sozialer Ordnung. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  20. Picard, R. G. (2002). The economics and financing of media companies. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation. Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sander, U., & Vollbrecht, R. (1987). Kinder und Jugendliche im Medienzeitalter. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sen, A. K. (1977). Rational fools. A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 6(4), 317–344.Google Scholar
  25. Sen, A. K. (1987). On ethics and economics. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Sen, A. K. (1999). The possibility of social choice. American Economic Review, 89(3), 349–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sen, A. K. (2003). Ökonomie für den Menschen. Wege zu Gerechtigkeit und Solidarität in der Marktwirtschaft. München: dtv.Google Scholar
  29. Sen, A. K. (2010). Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit. München: Beck.Google Scholar
  30. Tokarski, K. O. (2008). Ethik und Entrepreneurship. Eine theoretische sowie empirische Analyse junger Unternehmen im Rahmen einer Unternehmensethikforschung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  31. Ulrich, P. (2001). Integrative Wirtschaftsethik. Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie (3rd ed.). Berlin: Haupt.Google Scholar
  32. Varian, H. R. (2010). Intermediate microeconomics. A modern approach (8th ed.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  33. Weder, F., & Karmasin, M. (2011). Corporate communicative responsibility. Kommunikation als Ziel und Mittel unternehmerischer Verantwortungswahrnehmung – Studienergebnisse aus Österreich. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, 12(3), 410–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Medien und WirtschaftFachhochschule St. PöltenSt. PöltenÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations