Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Business Legitimacy pp 1–19Cite as

Law, Business, and Legitimacy

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

  • 115 Accesses

Abstract

The intention of this chapter is to formulate thought-provoking ideas about legitimacy and close neighbor terms. In particular, the chapter considers “legitimacy” to not only be a very relevant term for business ethics in general but also highly relevant in answering the question of how business ethics relates to law. Rather than defining legitimacy right away, the authors use the first part of this chapter to develop a comprehensive understanding of legitimacy by relating it to close neighbor terms, such as power, recognition, trust, justification, and criticism, on the one hand, and to legality in its contrast to and overlap with legitimacy, on the other. In the second part of this chapter, we offer concrete (real-world) examples and ideas of the interaction between legitimacy and law. These examples are drawn from traditional legal disciplines such as tax law and human rights law, as well as more modern legal preoccupations such as intellectual property law, laws relating to artificial intelligence and autonomous cars, the latest organic seed certification laws, etc. We envisage these examples as food-for-thought for future business ethics teaching and research at the interface of legitimacy and legality and business ethics and its legal contexts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Adelman MJ, Baldia S (1996) Prospects and limits of the patent provision in the TRIPS agreement: the case of India. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 29:507

    Google Scholar 

  • Aki J (2019) European banking regulators call for unity in crypto regulations. Bitcoin Magazine. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/european-banking-regulators-call-unity-crypto-regulations/

  • Alm J, Torgler B (2011) Do ethics matter? Tax compliance and morality. J Bus Ethics 101:635–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubert V (1967) Elements of sociology. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain C, Selfa T, Dandachi T, Velardi S (2017) “Superweeds” or “survivors”? Framing the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds and genetically engineered crops. J Rural Stud 51:211–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basheer S, Kochupillai M (2005) The ‘compulsory licence’ regime in India: past, present and future. Report for the Japanese Patent Office (JPO)

    Google Scholar 

  • BCG (Boston Consulting Group) (2015) Revolution versus regulation: the make or break questions about autonomous vehicles. https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/automotive-revolution-versus-regulation-make-break-questions-autonomous-vehicles.aspx. Last accessed 25 Mar 2019

  • Bently L, Sherman B (2014) Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bertot JC, Jaeger P, Hansen D (2012) The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges and recommendations. Gov Inf Q 29:30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier RG, Thomson I (2011) Modelling and measuring the social license to operate: fruits of a dialogue between theory and practice, book chapter. Downloadable here: https://socialicense.com/publications/Modelling%20and%20Measuring%20the%20SLO.pdf

  • Brinkmann J (1978) Konfliktsoziologie. Working papers 160, 174, 178 and 184 of the Institute of Sociology. University of Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann J (2013) Combining risk and responsibility perspectives: first steps. J Bus Ethics 112(4):567–583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann J (2015) Socratic dialogue – designed in the Nelson–Heckmann tradition: a tool for reducing the theory–practice divide in business ethics. In: Ims KJ, Pedersen LJT (eds) Business and the greater good: rethinking business ethics in an age of crisis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 240–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann J (2017) The potential use of sociological perspectives for business ethics teaching. J Bus Ethics. Online first (vol# by 2019), 156:273–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinkmann J, Lindemann B, Sims RR (2016) Voicing moral concerns: yes, but how? The use of socratic dialogue methodology. J Bus Ethics 139:619–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusseau J (2011) The business ethics workshop v. 1.0. Flat World Knowledge. Online Book, https://catalog.flatworldknowledge.com/catalog/editions/brusseau-the-business-ethics-workshop-1-0

  • Buhmann K (2016) Public regulators and CSR: the ‘Social licence to operate’ in recent United Nations Instruments on business and human rights and the juridification of CSR. J Bus Ethics 136:699–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CBS News (2018) China’s behavior monitoring system bars some from travel, purchasing property. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-social-credit-system-surveillance-cameras/

  • Claybrook J, Kildare S (2018) Autonomous vehicles: no driver…no regulation? Science 361(6397):36–37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottier T, Mavroidis PC (2000) Intellectual property: trade, competition, and sustainable development The World Trade Forum. World Trade Forum 4:115

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane A, Matten D (2016) Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobhal H (2011) Writings on human rights, law, and society in India: a combat law anthology. Selections from combat law, 2002–2010. Socio Legal Information Centre, p 241. Available at: https://hrln.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/combat-law-anthology.pdf

  • Dowling G (2014) The curious case of corporate tax avoidance: is it socially irresponsible? J Bus Ethics 124:173–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dratler J Jr (2018) Licensing of intellectual property. Law Journal Press, New York, p 103

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgar A (2005) The philosophy of Habermas. Acumen, Chesham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Euro News (2013) India rejects Novartis drug patent. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmYEJ_W9c6s. Accessed 13 Mar 2019

  • FAO (2001) Seed policy and programmes for the Central and Eastern European Countries, Commonwealth of Independent States and Other Countries in Transition. In: Proceedings of the regional technical meeting on seed policy and programmes for the Central and Eastern European Countries. Commonwealth of Independent States and other Countries in Transition Budapest

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster Back F (2013) Avoiding tax may be legal, but can it ever be ethical? The Guardian

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtung J (1959) Expectations and interaction processes. Inquiry 2:213–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh S, Calboli I (2018) Exhausting intellectual property rights: a comparative law and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, UK, p 25

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard M (2017) The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): European regulation that has a global impact. Int J Mark Res 59(6):703–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogoll J, Müller J (2016) Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Sci Eng Ethics 23(3):681–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogoll J, Uhl M (2018) Rage against the machine: automation in the moral domain. J Behav Exp Econ 74:97–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon WJ (1984) Fair use as market failure: a structural & economic analysis of the “Betamax” case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Rev 82:1600–1611

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1971) Knowledge and human interests: a general perspective. In: Knowledge and human interests (trans: Shapiro JJ). Beacon Press, Boston, pp 301–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1983) Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt (Engl. translation 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannum H (2016) reinvigorating human rights for the twenty-first century. Hum Rights Law Rev 16(3):409–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson J (1994) Seed production by smallholder farmers. In: Proceedings of the ILCA/ICARDA research planning workshop, held at ILCA. Addis Ababa

    Google Scholar 

  • Heins V (2008) Nongovernmental organizations in international society: struggles over recognition. Palgrave Macmillan, US, p 98

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hess MF, Alexander RM (2015) Brewing up controversy: a case exploring the ethics of corporate tax planning. Issues Account Educ 30:311–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoen E, Love J, Russell A (2001) Access to medicines and the Doha WTO: why patents matter/interviewer: K. Torgeson. Doctors without borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy M (2016) WTO dispute settlement and the TRIPS agreement: applying intellectual property standards in a trade law framework. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent A (1999) China, the United Nations, and human rights: the limits of compliance. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kiliç B (2014) Boosting pharmaceutical innovation in the post-TRIPS era. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chelteham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, p 81

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kobak JB (2005) Exhaustion of intellectual property rights and international trade. Glob Econ J 5(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochupillai M (2016) Chapter 1: An economic and philosophical introduction to sustainable innovations in plant varieties. In: Promoting sustainable innovations in plant varieties. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ku S (2003) Consumers and creative destruction: fair use beyond market failure. Berkeley Technol Law J 18:539–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur A, Mizaras V (2011) The structure of intellectual property law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Chelteham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kurth K, Rubel H, Walker D, Meyer zum Felde A, Jerratsch JF, Zielcke F (2018) It’s time to plant the seeds of sustainable growth in agriculture. BCG Publications. Retrieved from https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/time-plant-seeds-sustainable-growth-agriculture.aspx

  • Kvalnes O (2015) Chapter about “Loophole ethics”. In: Moral reasoning at work. Palgrave, London, pp 55–61

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ladas SP (1975) Patents, trademarks, and related rights – national and international protection. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, p 323

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamphere JA, East EA (2016) Monsanto’s biotechnology politics: discourses of legitimation. Environ Commun 11(1):75–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie CR (2011) Antitrust law and intellectual property rights: cases and materials. Oxford University Press, New York, p 186

    Google Scholar 

  • Light S (2017) Autonomous vehicle bill leaves safety gaps. The regulatory review. Retrieved from https://www.theregreview.org/2017/09/25/light-autonomous-vehicle-bill-gaps/

  • Lord N (2018) Tax avoidance might be legal, but it’s time we seriously questioned its ethics. Tax Breaks Newsl 2018(385):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (1969) Legitimation durch Verfahre. Luchterhand, Neuwied

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N (2014) A sociological theory of law. Routledge, Abingdon (German original Rechtssoziologie (1972), Rowohlt, Reinbek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lütge C (2017) The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philos Technol 30(4):547–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhotra P (2010) Impact of TRIPS in India: an access to medicines perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, p 123

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mance H (2018) Social media platforms drawn into regulatory and political net. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/c950f278-b73d-11e8-bbc3-ccd7de085ffe

  • McKenna F (2017) Here’s how the U.S. and the world regulate bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Market Watch. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-how-the-us-and-the-world-are-regulating-bitcoin-and-cryptocurrency-2017-12-18

  • McManis CR (2003) Patenting genetic products and processes: a TRIPS perspective. Adv Genet 50:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore D (2001) Are international human rights U.S. law? https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordings/david-moore-are-international-human-rights-us-law

  • Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority (undated) Safety and health. https://www.arbeidstilsynet.no/en/safety-and-health

  • Obar JA, Wildman S (2015) Social media definition and the governance challenge: an introduction to the special issu. Telecommun Policy 39(9):745–750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner RA (2005) Intellectual property: the law and economics approach. J Econ Perspect 19(2):58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regulation (EU) (2018) Regulation 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff J (2009) Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations. CBS Press, Copenhagen. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.bi.no/lib/bilibrary/detail.action?docID=3400796

  • Ryz L, Grest L (2016) A new era in data protection. Comput Fraud Secur 2016(3):18–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sell S (2003) Private power, public law: the globalization of intellectual property rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva V (2000) North-South conflicts in intellectual property rights. Peace Rev 12(4):501–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003) Human rights, Substantive revision Nov 8, 2014. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-human/

  • Steiger G, Patel KK (2017) International food law and policy. Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Straus J (2007) The impact of the new world order on economic development: the role of the intellectual property rights system. Eur Rev 15(01):47–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Supreme Court of India (2013) Novartis Ag vs Union of India & Ors on 1 April, 2013. Retrieved from https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165776436/. Accessed 13 Mar 2019

  • Ulrich P (2016) Integrative Wirtschaftsethik. Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie, Haupt, 5th edn. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien (Engl. translation 2008. Integrative economic ethics: foundations of a civilized market economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

  • United Nations Human rights. http://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/human-rights/

  • Weber M (1972) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1978) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane PH, Gorman ME, Mead J, Hertz M, Nieusma D (2008) Monsanto Europe: Monsanto introduces Gmos to Europe with unexpected results. Darden Case No. UVA-E-0217. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=908731

  • WHO (2001) The Doha declaration on the TRIPs agreement and public health. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/medicines/areas/policy/doha_declaration/en/. Accessed 13 Mar 2019

  • Winckelmann J (1952) Legitimität und Legalität in Max Webers Herrschaftssoziologie. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Winckelmann J (1956) Die verfassungsrechtliche Unterscheidung von Legitimität und Legalität. Z Gesamte Staatswiss 112(1):164–175

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (undated) What is intellectual property? https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf

  • WTO (2000) Canada – Patent protection of pharmaceutical products. Complaint by the European Communities and their member States. Report of the panel. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/7428d.pdf; Accessed 13 Mar 2019

  • Xiong P (2012) An International law perspective on the protection of human rights in the TRIPS agreement: an interpretation of the TRIPS agreement in relation to the right to health. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Boston

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yamane H (2011) Interpreting TRIPS: globalisation of intellectual property rights and access to medicines. Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, UK

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway

    Johannes Brinkmann

  2. Sustainable Innovations Research and Education (SIRN), Munich, Germany

    Mrinalini Kochupillai

  3. Munich Intellectual Property Law Center, Munich, Germany

    Mrinalini Kochupillai

  4. Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

    Mrinalini Kochupillai

Authors
  1. Johannes Brinkmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mrinalini Kochupillai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Brinkmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark

    Jacob Dahl Rendtorff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Brinkmann, J., Kochupillai, M. (2019). Law, Business, and Legitimacy. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_23-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_23-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation