DIFFERENT APPROACHES to ETHICS & SOCIAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Johnson, Scholes & Factors that

Gray, Owen & Adams determine the
Whittington
social role of an
orgz in the society

Social Responsibility
of Orgz Corporate &
1) National & regional
Personal Ethical cultures
Stance - cultural differences affect
never tested but possible stakeholder expectations
directly

2) Organisational field
- industry or profession
- share common bis
environment
SEVEN different views
1. pristine capitalist
3) Organisational culture
- law & no more
- within its orgz
- responsibility to s/hs only FOUR ethical stance : - operate unconsciously
2. expedient 1. ST s/hs interest - taken-for-granted
- LT economic welfare - only responsibility assumptions
require accpetance of wider
- meet minimum obligations but no - collective behaviours
SR
more - four layers :
3. social contractarian
2. longer-term s/hs interest values;
- equivalent view of CC
- recognised LT financial benefits to beliefs;
4. social ecologists s/hs of well-managed r/ships with
behaviours;
- human environment other stakeholders
taken-for-granted
5. socialists - enlightened self-interest
assumptions
- equality - insrtumental form
6. radical feminists 3. multiple stakeholders obligations
- feminists values/soft skills - social contractarian
7. deep ecologists - equivalent
- respect the right of other - normative form
living beings - stakeholders' interest incorporated
- beyong min obligations
- performance measured in pluralistic
way
4. shaper of society
- purpose - shape society
- finacnial considerations - secondary
importance

1
GRAY, OWEN & ADAMS – SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF ORGZ

- Social responsibility derives from how one believes the world to be and how one would like the world to be
- SEVEN different views by different groups in society of orgz-society relationship :
1) Pristine capitalist tested
 For this group, any form of SR will be those that are prescribed by the law and no more
 Minimal – no addl responsibility – just law – companies act (responsibility to s/h only)
 Liberal economic democracy
 Make money for s/hs, to grow, make pfts and seek economic efficiency
 Level 1 – self centred

2) Expedient
 Considers that LT economic welfare and stability can only be achieved by the acceptance of certain
wider SR
 Level 1 ; stage 2 (enlighten, smarter)
 Not sincere to do good – they know that NGO is getting more powerful which will bring no good to
company in LT – so they do smthg minimal to please the NGO – still concern abt s/hs

Both PC & Ex – predominantly conservative, pro-capital, pro-corporations, content with existing system

3) Proponents of the social contract/Social contractarian tested

 Consider that companies exist at society’s will and therefore are obliged to society’s wishes
 Significant flow of info btw companies & society
 Level 2 ; stage 4 – equivalent view of CC/pluralistic view/inclusive view

4) Social ecologists
 Concerned for human environment
 Sees that smthg has gone wrong with existing economic system – not working efficiently
 Eg misallocation of resources (unfair), pollution, waste creation etc
 Want change to existing economic system – to improve/held constant quality of human life
 Sustainable development
 Level 3

5) Socialists
 vs capitalists
 believe that the present domination of economic, social and political life by capital is unfavourable
 equality
 reckoned that there must be a significant re-adjustment in the ownership & structure of society

6) Radical feminists
 Existing system ‘masculine’ – materialistic – world has become a cold place to live in
 Should bring back ‘feminine’ values – soft skills

7) Deep ecologists tested

 Human beings do not have any greater rights to existence than any other forms of life
 All living beings have the same right – respect the right of other living beings
 Most extreme in demanding changes to existing system

5) & 6) & 7) – all level 3

2
JOHNSON, SCHOLES & WHITTINGTON – CORPORATE AND PERSONAL ETHICAL STANCE never tested but possible

- FOUR different ethical stances :

1) ST Shareholder Interests
 Similar to pristine capitalists
 Only responsibility  ST interests of s/hs  ST gain to s/hs
 Orgz will meet minimum obligations i.e. legislation, regulation & CG arrangements but no more

2) Longer-term Shareholder Interests

 Similar to expedient
 Recognize LT financial benefit to s/hs of well-managed r/ships with other stakeholders
 Enlightened self-interest – broader & deeper understanding
 Undertake social activities – motive – not for good ethics – it’s for economic benefits – as orgz’s
reputation is important for LT financial success
 Instrumental form of stakeholders theory – eg NGO, ethical fund, attract talent – not normative form

3) Multiple stakeholder obligations

 Similar to social contractarian
 Stakeholder interests & expectations (wider than just s/hs) should be incorporated in the orgz’s
purposes and strategies beyond the minimum obligations of regulation & CG
 Orgz’s performance should be measured in a much more pluralistic way than just its financial bottom
line
 Normative form – good ethics
 Stakeholders approach/inclusive view/pluralistic/equivalent/social contractarian (society)

4) Shaper of society
 Similar to social ecologists, socialists, radical feminists & deep ecologists
 Purposes concerned with shaping society
 Financial considerations regarded as secondary importance

3
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE THE SOCIAL ROLE OF ORGZ IN THE SOCIETY / FACTORS THAT SHAPE THE ORGZ IN CSR

1) National and regional cultures

 Pertaining to CSR
 National cultural context influences stakeholders expectations directly
 Even within country – sub-national (regional) cultures
 Cultural differences exist btw urban and rural locations too

2) Organizational field
 Culture is also shaped by industry (or sector) or profession
 This cultural influence is better understood as the influence of the organizational field. Orgz within a field
tend to share a common bis environment such as dominant technology, regulation, education or training
 The behavior of PA for instance is very much influenced by the code for PA (whole profession –
consistency)

3) Organizational culture
 Within its orgz
 Definition by Schein – basic assumptions & beliefs that are shared by members of an orgz, that operate
unconsciously and define in a basic taken-for-granted fashion an orgz’s view of itself and its environment
 In other words, culture is about collective behaviors in an orgz
 Four layers (onion model) :
(a) Values
- Mission & vision, objectives or strategies
- Outset layer
- Tend to be vague
- Doesn’t mean will do it – lip service – talk only
(b) Beliefs
- Values accepted by people in company
- Issues people in the orgz can surface and talk about
- More specific
- May not result in action
(c) Behaviours
- Day-to-day way in which an orgz operates and
- Can be seen by people both inside & outside the orgz
- Behaviour is still not seen as the culture if the person concerned are conscious about what they
are doing which mean they may not perform those tasks when not under observation
(d) Taken-for-granted assumptions
- Collectively
- Unconsciously
- Difficult to identify and explain (embedded)
- Referred as organizational paradigm
- Core of an orgz’s culture