On the Sense and Practicability of Ascribing Moral Responsibility to Corporations – Critical Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15678/ZNUEK.2016.0955.0706Keywords:
moral responsibility, group agency, stakeholder theory, corporate social responsibilityAbstract
The article seeks to determine if corporations can be expected to act in a morally responsible manner and what possible factors can make such a view sensible. In the article, I analyse three different views of corporate moral responsibility: first, that it is not possible; second, that such a responsibility is based on an appropriately understood conception of moral corporate subjectivity; and, third, that it is not necessary to acknowledge its moral subjectivity in order to assign moral responsibility to a corporation. I consider different types of argumentation, the implications regarding stakeholder theory and social expectations included in the concept of corporate social responsibility.
Downloads
References
Ashman I., Winstanley D. [2007], For or Against Corporate Identity? Personification and the Problem of Moral Agency, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 76, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9270-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9270-7
Carroll A. [1979], A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate Performance, „The Academy of Management Review”, vol. 4, nr 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/257850
Dempsey J. [2013], Corporations and Non-Agential Moral Responsibility, „Journal of Applied Philosophy”, vol. 30, nr 4, https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12029
Donaldson T., Preston L.E. [1995], The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence, and Implications, „The Academy of Management Review”, vol. 20, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1995.9503271992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/258887
Ewin R.E. [1991], The Moral Status of the Corporation, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 10, nr 10, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705709
Frederick W.C. [1994], From CSR1 to CSR2: The Maturing of Business-and-Society Thought, „Business & Society”, vol. 33, nr 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039403300202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000765039403300202
Freeman R.E. [1984], Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, HarperCollins College Div.
Freeman R.E., McVea J. [2001], A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management, Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Virginia, Working Paper No. 01-02.
French P.A. [1997], Spółka jako podmiot moralny, tłum. J. Sójka [w:] Etyka biznesu. Z klasyki współczesnej myśli amerykańskiej, red. L.V. Ryan CSV, J. Sójka, W drodze, Poznań.
Friedman M. [1970], The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, „The New York Times Magazine”, September 13.
Friedman M. [1997], Społeczną powinnością biznesu jest pomnażanie zysków, tłum. J. Sójka [w:] Etyka biznesu. Z klasyki współczesnej myśli amerykańskiej, red. L.V. Ryan CSV, J. Sójka, W drodze, Poznań.
Gibson K. [2000], The Moral Basis of Stakeholder Theory, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 26, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006110106408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006110106408
Goodpaster K., Matthews Jr. J. [1997], Czy spółka może mieć sumienie?, tłum. E. Dratwa [w:] Etyka biznesu. Z klasyki współczesnej myśli amerykańskiej, red. L.V. Ryan CSV, J. Sójka, W drodze, Poznań.
Harrison J., Bosse D., Phillips R. [2012], Managing for Stakeholders, Stakeholder Utility Functions, and Competitive Advantage [w:] New Directions in Business Ethics, vol. IV, Sage, Los Angeles.
Harrison J.S., Freeman R.E., Cavalcanti Sá de Abreu M. [2015], Stakeholder Theory As an Ethical Approach to Effective Management: Applying the Theory to Multiple Contexts, „Review of Business Management”, vol. 17, nr 55, https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v17i55.2647
Hindriks F. [2014], How Autonomous Are Collective Agents? Corporate Rights and Normative Individualism, „Erkenntnis”, vol. 79, suppl. 9, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9629-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-014-9629-6
Kwarciński T. [2016], Spór o możliwość i sensowność przypisywania korporacjom moralnej odpowiedzialności. Stan badań, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie”, nr 4(952), https://doi.org/10.15678/ZNUEK.2016.0952.0406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15678/ZNUEK.2016.0952.0406
Ladd J. [1997], Moralność a ideał racjonalności w organizacjach formalnych, tłum. J. Sójka [w:] Etyka biznesu. Z klasyki współczesnej myśli amerykańskiej, red. L.V. Ryan CSV, J. Sójka, W drodze, Poznań.
Manning R. [1988], Dismemberment, Divorce and Hostile Takeovers: A Comment on Corporate Moral Personhood, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 7, nr 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382798
Miles S. [2015], Stakeholder Theory Classification: A Theoretical and Empirical Evaluation of Definitions, „Journal of Business Ethics”, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2741-y
Moore G. [1999], Corporate Moral Agency: Review and Implications, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 21, nr 4, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006020214228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006020214228
Pettit P., List Ch. [2011], Group Agency. The Possibility, Design and Status of Corporate Agents, Oxford University Press.
Pfeiffer R.S. [1990], The Central Distinction in the Theory of Corporate Moral Personhood, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 9, nr 6, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382840. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382840
Ranken N.L. [1987], Corporations as Persons: Objections to Goodpaster’s ‘Principle of Moral Projection’, „Journal of Business Ethics”, vol. 6, nr 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705779. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705779
Velasquez M.G. [1997], Dlaczego spółki nie są za nic moralnie odpowiedzialne?, tłum. E. Dratwa, J. Sójka [w:] Etyka biznesu. Z klasyki współczesnej myśli amerykańskiej, red. L.V. Ryan CSV, J. Sójka, W drodze, Poznań.
Velasquez M.G. [2003], Debunking Corporate Moral Responsibility, „Business Ethics Quarterly”, vol. 14, nr 4, https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313436
Wood S. [2011], Four Varieties of Social Responsibility: Making Sense of the „Sphere of Influence” and ‟Leverage” Debate via the Case of ISO 26000, „Osgoode CLPE Research Paper 14/2011”, vol. 7, nr 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1777505
