Competitive Markets, Corporate Firms, and New Governance—An Ordonomic Conceptualization

  • Ingo Pies
  • Markus Beckmann
  • Stefan Hielscher
Part of the Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy book series (SEEP, volume 40)


The purpose of this chapter is to develop an ordonomic conceptualization of corporate citizenship and new governance that (a) provides a framework for positively explaining the political participation of companies in new governance processes and (b) does not weaken but instead strengthens the functional role of corporations as economic actors in the market system of value creation. To this end, we develop our ordonomic approach in a critical discussion of Milton Friedman’s stance on the social responsibility of business in three steps. (1) The ordonomic perspective on the economics ethics of competitive markets argues that the social responsibility of business does not lie in maximizing profits but in addressing societal needs through the mutually advantageous creation of value. (2) The ordonomic approach to the business ethics of corporate actors claims that corporate firms can use moral commitments as a factor of production. (3) The ordonomic perspective on the process ethics of new governance holds that companies can act not only as economic actors but also participate as political and moral actors by taking ordo-responsibility in processes of new governance. This role of corporate citizens in the new governance does not weaken but, instead, strengthens the role of business firms as economic agents for value creation.


New governance Corporate citizenship Value creation Economic ethics Business ethics Process ethics Ordonomics Stakeholder theory Sustainability Aristotle Milton Friedman Corporate social responsibility 


  1. Baumol, William J. 2002. The free-market innovation machine. Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Ulrich. 2002. Macht und Gegenmacht im globalen Zeitalter. Neue weltpolitische Ökonomie. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, Gary S. 1976. The economic approach to human behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, Gary S. 1993. Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy 101: 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beckmann, Markus. 2010. Ordnungsverantwortung. Rational-Choice als ordonomisches Forschungsprogramm. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  6. Beckmann, Markus, and Ingo Pies. 2008a. Ordo-Responsibility—Conceptual reflections towards a semantic innovation. In Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory: Philosophical considerations of business ethics, eds. Jesus Conill, Christoph Lütge, and Tatjana Schönwälder, 87–115. Aldershot and London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Beckmann, Markus, and Ingo Pies. 2008b. Sustainability by corporate citizenship. Journal of Corporate Citizenship 31: 45–57.Google Scholar
  8. Boatright, John R. 1999. Does business ethics rest on a mistake? Business Ethics Quarterly 9(4): 583–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boatright, John R. 2009. The implications of the new governance for corporate governance. Paper prepared for the conference “Corporate Citizenship and New Governance,” Lutherstadt Wittenberg, November 2009, included as Chapter 8 in this volume.Google Scholar
  10. Buttkereit, Sören. 2009. Intersectoral alliances: An institutional economics perspective. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Edwards, Michael, and Simon Zadek. 2003. Governing the provision of global goods: The role and legitimacy of nonstate actors. In Providing global public goods, eds. Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceição, Katell Le Goulven, and Ronald U. Mendoza, 200–224. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Eigen, Peter. 2006. Fighting corruption in a global economy: Transparency initiatives in the oil and gas industry. Houston Journal of International Law 29: 327–354.Google Scholar
  14. Frenkel, Stephen J., and Duncan Scott. 2002. Compliance, collaboration, and codes of labor practice: The Adidas connection. California Management Review 45(1): 29–49.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, Milton. 1962. Capitalism and freedom. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, Milton. 1970. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, September 13, 32–33, 122–126.Google Scholar
  17. Habisch, André, René Schmidpeter, and Martin Neureiter. 2008. Handbuch corporate citizenship: Corporate social responsibility für manager. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Hazlitt, Henry. [1964] 1994. The foundations of morality. New York: The Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
  19. Henderson, David. 2001. Misguided virtue. False notions of corporate social responsibility. Wellington: The Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  20. Henderson, David. 2004. The role of business in the modern worldProgress, pressures and prospects for the market economy. London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  21. Hirsch, Bernhard, and Matthias Meyer. 2009. Integrating soft factors into the assessment of cooperative relationships between firms: Accounting for reputation and ethical values. Business Ethics: A European Review 19(1): 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hollenhorst, Tirza, and Chris Johnson. 2005. Tools for corporate social responsibility. Atlanta: Forest Stewardship Council.Google Scholar
  23. Homann, Karl. 1990. Wettbewerb und Moral. Jahrbuch für Christliche Sozialwissenschaften (31): 34–56.Google Scholar
  24. Homann, Karl. 2002. Vorteile und Anreize. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  25. Homann, Karl. 2003. Anreize und Moral: GesellschaftstheorieEthikAnwendungen. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  26. Homann, Karl, and Ingo Pies. 1994. Wirtschaftsethik in der Moderne: Zur ökonomischen Theorie der Moral. Ethik und Sozialwissenschaften (EUS) 5(1): 3–12.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, Michael C. 2002. Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12(2): 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lin-Hi, Nick. 2009. Eine Theorie der Unternehmensverantwortung. Die Verknüpfung von Gewinnerzielung und gesellschaftlichen Interessen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
  29. Lütge, Christoph. 2005. Economic Ethics, Business Ethics and the Idea of Mutual Advantages. Business Ethics: A European Review 14(2): 108–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lütge, Christoph. 2007. Was hält die Gesellschaft zusammen? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  31. Mackey, John. 2006. Winning the battle for freedom and prosperity. Liberty 20(6): 17–22.Google Scholar
  32. Matten, Dirk, and Andrew Crane. 2005. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review 30(1): 166–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1996. Human action. Irvington: Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
  34. Mises, Ludwig von. [1951] 2008. Profit and loss. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  35. Moon, Jeremy, Andrew Crane, and Dirk Matten. 2005. Can corporations be citizens? Corporate citizenship as a metaphor for business participation in society. Business Ethics Quarterly 15: 429–454.Google Scholar
  36. Oosterhout, Hans van. 2005. Corporate citizenship: An idea whose time has not yet come. Academy of Management Review 30(4): 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Palazzo, Guido, and Andreas G. Scherer. 2006. Corporate legitimacy as deliberation: A communicative framework. Journal of Business Ethics 66: 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pies, Ingo. 2008. Wie bekämpft man Korruption? Lektionen der Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik für eine “Ordnungspolitik zweiter Ordnung”. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  39. Pies, Ingo. 2009a. Normativität als Heuristik. Ordonomische Schriften zur Wirtschaftsethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Pies Ingo. 2009b. Moral als Produktionsfaktor. Ordonomische Schriften zur Unternehmensethik. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  41. Pies, Ingo, Markus Beckmann, and Stefan Hielscher. 2009a. Sozialstruktur und Semantik—Ordonomik als Forschungsprogramm in der modernen (Welt-)Gesellschaft. In Moral als Heuristik. Ordonomische Schriften zur Wirtschaftsethik, ed. Ingo Pies, 282–312, Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.Google Scholar
  42. Pies, Ingo, Stefan Hielscher, and Markus Beckmann. 2009b. Moral commitments and the societal role of business: An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly 19(3): 375–401.Google Scholar
  43. Pies, Ingo, Markus Beckmann, and Stefan Hielscher. 2010. Social value creation, management competencies, and global corporate citizenship—An ordonomic approach to business ethics in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics 94(2): 265–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Popper, Karl R. [1945] 1966. The open society and its enemies, Vol. 2. New York: Hegel and Marx, Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Scherer, Andreas G., and Guido Palazzo. 2007. Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review 32(4): 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scherer, Andreas G., and Guido Palazzo. 2008. Globalization and corporate social responsibility. In The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility, eds. Andrew Crane, Abagail McWilliams, Dirk Matten, Jeremy Moon, and Donald Siegel, 413–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Scherer, Andreas G., Guido Palazzo, and Dorothée Baumann. 2006. Global rules and private actors: Toward a new role of the transnational corporation in global governance. Business Ethics Quarterly 16(4): 505–532.Google Scholar
  48. Schönwälder-Kuntze, Tatjana. 2008. “Corporate citizenship” from a (systems)-theoretical point of view. In Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory. On philosophical foundations of business ethics, eds. Jesus Conill, Christoph Lütge, and Tatjana Schönwälder-Kuntze, 49–65. Aldershot and London: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  49. Suchanek, Andreas. 2007. Ökonomische Ethik. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  50. Suchanek, Andreas, and Nick Lin-Hi. 2007. Corporate Responsibility in der forschenden Arzneimittelindustrie. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 227(5+6): 547–562.Google Scholar
  51. Sundaram, Anant K., and Andrew C. Inkpen. 2004. The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science 15(3): 350–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanberg, Viktor J. 2007. Corporate social responsibility and the “game of catallaxy”: The perspective of constitutional economics. Constitutional Political Economy 18(3): 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Waldkirch, Rüdiger W. 2001. Prolegomena for an economic theory of morals. Business Ethics: A European Review 10(1): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waldkirch, Rüdiger W., Matthias Meyer, and Karl Homann. 2009. Accounting for the benefits of social security and the role of business: Four ideal types and their different heuristics. Journal of Business Ethics 89: 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, Business and Economics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-WittenbergHalle (Saale), Sachsen-AnhaltGermany
  2. 2.Centre for Sustainability Management, Leuphana University LueneburgLueneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations