Toward a Holistic Perception of Socially Responsible Ethics

• Autorzy: Vojko Potocan , Zlatko Nedelko , Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha

Warianty tytułu

W kierunku holistycznej percepcji społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose - To offer a new requisitely holistic definition of socially responsible ethics (SRE) of Business systems (BSs). The contribution considers a basic problem: How do stakeholders understand and think about SRE? Therefore business should be investigated from the viewpoint of modern ethics. Requisite holism of perceiving SRE in business reality is unavoidable; it can result from findings and considerations of the interdependence between business practice, general ethics, and SRE. Design/methodology/approach - In this paper qualitative research is performed based on Ethics, Business Ethics, Business, and Dialectical Systems Theories. Findings - Ethics can be viewed as the subjective part of the starting points for any human process, including business. Business ethics (BE) are equally crucial as knowledge and outer/objective conditions are, because humans are both rational and emotional and spiritual beings, and are so in synergy. To clarify and beneficially use SRE, one must understand relations between globalization and characteristics of BSs, new and prevailing development concepts of BSs, and SRE and prevailing BE in BSs. Research limitation/implications - Research is limited to hypotheses and qualitative analysis by means of desk research. Practical experience is considered implicitly. Postulated hypotheses are tested by employees' feedback about their perception of selected factors regarding SRE in Slovenian organizations. For case investigation we used factorial analysis, elements of descriptive statistics, and graphical representation of results. Practical implications - This is a step toward development of business with a requisitely holistic approach founded on requisite wholeness of insight. We suggest a more specifically created and target-oriented approach to understanding and research of SRE of BSs in the current environment. Originality/value - We offer a fresh approach for more holistic understanding and consideration of BE, rarely found in main-stream literature. A new perception and definition of SRE is offered.(original abstract)

Cel - propozycja holistycznej definicji społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki biznesu rozumianego jako system. W artykule rozważany jest podstawowy problem: Jak interesariusze rozumieją społecznie odpowiedzialną etykę? Z tego punktu widzenia biznes powinien być badany pod kątem współczesnej etyki. Holizm w percepcji społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki w biznesie jest nieunikniony; może on wynikać z badań dotyczących wzajemnych zależności pomiędzy praktyką biznesową, ogólną etyką i etyką społecznie odpowiedzialną. Projekt/metodologia/podejście: w artykule prezentowane jest podejście jakościowe opierające się na etyce, etyce biznesu oraz teoriach dialektycznych i systemowych. Wyniki - Etyka może być rozumiana jako subiektywny element punktu wyjścia każdego ludzkiego procesu, włączając w to biznes. Etyka biznesu jest tak samo kluczowa jak innego rodzaju wiedza oraz znajomość zewnętrznych/ obiektywnych warunków, ponieważ ludzie są zarówno bytami racjonalnymi, jak i emocjonalnymi i to połączenie tworzy synergię. Żeby uściślić i wykorzystać w odpowiedni sposób społecznie odpowiedzialną etykę, należy zrozumieć relacje pomiędzy globalizacją a biznesem jako systemem, wziąć pod uwagę nowe koncepcje rozwoju biznesu i społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki. Badania/ograniczenia/implikacje: Badanie ogranicza się do hipotez i analizy jakościowej. Praktyczne doświadczenie jest zakładane implicite. Hipotezy są testowane przez informację zwrotną pracowników na temat ich percepcji wybranych elementów społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki w firmach słoweńskich. Do badania przypadków wykorzystano analizę zależności, elementy opisowej statystyki i przedstawiono wyniki graficznie. Praktyczne implikacje: Jest to krok w kierunku rozwijania biznesu z uwzględnieniem koniecznego holistycznego podejścia bazującego na intuicji całości. Zasugerowano bardziej szczegółowe i zorientowane na cele rozumienie i badanie społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki biznesu jako systemu, funkcjonującego we współczesnym otoczeniu. Oryginalność/wartość: Zaprezentowano nowe podejście dotyczące bardziej holistycznego rozumienia i rozważań w etyce biznesu, które jest rzadkie w głównym nurcie literatury, jak również nowe rozumienie i definicję społecznie odpowiedzialnej etyki.(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Business ethics; Case study

PL

Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu; Etyka biznesu; Studium przypadku

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczo-Humanistycznego w Siedlcach. Administracja i Zarządzanie
• Rocznik: 2012
• Tom: 22
• Numer: nr 95
• Strony: 83--109

Twórcy

autor

Vojko Potocan

• University of Maribor, Slovenia

autor

Zlatko Nedelko

• University of Maribor, Slovenia

autor

Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha

• University of Minho, Portugal

Bibliografia

• Alibeli M., Johnson C. (2009), Environmental concern: A cross national analysis. Journal of international and cross-cultural studies, 3(1), pp. 1-10.
• Beauchamp T., Bowie N. (eds.), (2004), Ethical Theory and Business. Pearson Prentice Hall, New York.
• Bennett C. (2010), What is this thing called Ethics? Routledge, New York.
• Bertalanffy L. (1968), General Systems Theory, Foundations, Development, Applications. Brazillier, New York.
• Blackburn W. (2007), The Sustainability Handbook: The complete management guide to achieving social, economic and environmental responsibility. Earthscan Publications, London.
• Boatright J. (2006), Ethics and the Conduct of Business. Prentice Hall, New York.
• Bowie N. (ed.), (2001), The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Brenkert G., Beauchamp T. (eds.), (2010), The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Brooks L. (2006), Business and Professional Ethics for Directors, Executives, and Accountants. South-Western College, Brentford.
• Brooks L., Dunn P. (2011), Business & Professional Ethics. South-Western College, Cincinnati.
• Buchanan D., Huczynski A. (2010), Organizational Behavior. Pearson, Harlow. Campbell L. (2007), Why Should Corporations Behave in Socially Responsible Ways? Academy of Management Review, 32(3), pp. 946-967.
• Certo S., Certo T. (2009), Modern Management: Concepts and Skills. Pearson, Upper Saddle River.
• Chesbrough H. (2009), Open Innovation. Harvard Business School, Boston Cooper C., Argyris C. (eds.), (2000), Encylopedia of Management. Blackwell, Boston.
• Cordano M., Welcomer S., Scherer R., Pradenas L., Parada V. (2010), A crosscultural assessment of three theories of pro-environmental behaviour: A comparison between business students in Chile and the United States.
• The Journal of Environmental Education, 41(4), pp. 224-238.
• Crane A., Matten D. (2010), Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Cypher J., Dietz J. (2008), The Process of Economic Development. Taylor & Francis, New York.
• Daft R. (2007), Organization Theory and Design. South-Western College, Cincinnati.
• Daft R. (2009), Management. South-Western College, Cincinnati.
• Darwall S., Gibbard A., Railton P. (eds.), (1997), Moral Discourse and Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.
• Davis G., Whitman N., Zald N. (2008), The Responsibility Paradox. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter issue, pp. 31-37.
• Dunlap R., Gallup G., Gallup A. (1993), Of Global Concern: Results of the Health of the Planet Survey. Environment, 35(9), pp. 7-39.
• Edwards A., Orr D. (2005), The Sustainability Revolution. New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island.
• Epstein M., Elkington J., Leonardo H. (2008), Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental and economics impacts. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
• Esposito M. (2009), Put Your Corporate Social Responsibility Act Together! Tate Publishing, Mustang.
• Friedman M., Friedman R. (1962, edition 2002), Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
• Ferrell C., Fraedrich J., Ferrell L. (2010), Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making & Cases. South-Western College Pub, Cincinnati.
• Fransson N., Garling T. (1999), Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(4), pp. 369-382.
• Gerzema J. (2010), Spend Shift: How the Post-Crisis values Revolution Is Changing the Way We Buy, Sell, and Live. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
• Goerner S., Dyck G., Lagerroos D. (2008), The New Science of Sustainability: Building a Foundation for Great Change. TCCS, Chapel Hill.
• Hartman L., DesJardins J. (2010), Business Ethics: Decision-Making for Personal Integrity & Social Responsibility. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York.
• Hopkins M. (2008), Corporate social responsibility and international development: Is business the solution? Earthscan Publication, London
• Hrast A., Mulej M. (eds.), (2010), Social responsibility: Nature and humans. IRDO, Maribor.
• ISO (2010), ISO 26000. http://www.26k-estimation.com/html/user_guides_iso_26000.html (Downloaded on 15. June 2011).
• Jennings M. (2005), Business: Its Legal, Ethical and Global Environment. South-Western, Brentford.
• Kekes J. (1988), Self-Directions: The Core of Ethical Individualism. Praeger, New York.
• Kemmelmeier M., Krol G., Hun Kim Y. (2002), Values, Economics, and Proenvironmental attitudes in 22 societies. Cross-Cultural Research, 36(3), pp. 256-285.
• Kohlberg L. (1976), Moral Stage and Moralization. McGraw Hill, New York.
• Lawrence A., Weber J. (2007), Business and Society: Stakeholders, Ethics, Public Policy. McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Lerner J. (2009), Boulevard of Broken Dreams: Why Public Efforts to Boost Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital Have Failed and What to Do About It. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
• Linstead S., Fulop L., Lilley S. (eds.), (2009), Management & Organization: A critical text. Palgrave/MacMillan, Basingstoke.
• Martin R. (2009), Opposable Mind: Winning Through Integrative Thinking. Harvard Business Press, Boston.
• Matten D., Moon J. (2008), "Implicit" and "Explicit" CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), pp. 404-424.
• Mulej M. (1979), Creative Work and Dialectical Systems Theory (in Slovenian). Mladinska knjiga, Maribor.
• Mulej M. (2000), The Dialectical Systems Theory. FEB, Maribor.
• Mulej M. (2007), Systems theory: A worldview and/or a methodology aimed at requisite holism/realism of humans' thinking. Systems Research and Behavior Science, 24(3), pp. 347-357.
• Mulej M. (2010), Action Makes Innovation from Knowledge and Invention. In: Rebernik M. (ed.): Proceedings of the 30th PODIM Conference. FEB, Maribor.
• Mulej M., Kajzer S. (1996), Total quality management, reengineering, or something else. Cybernetics and Systems, 27(6), pp. 555-563.
• Mullins L. (2010), Management and Organisational Behavior. Prentice Hall, New York.
• Nedelko Z. (2009), The Impact of Personal Values on Leadership Style. Research in Social Change, 1(3), pp. 41-66.
• Nordlund A., Garvill J. (2002), Value structures behind pro-environmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 34(6), pp. 740-756.
• Oreg S., Katz-Gerro T. (2006), Predicting pro-environmental behavior crossnationally. Environment and Behavior, 38(4), pp. 462-483.
• Potocan V. (2006), Ethics of Interdependence. In: Hoyer C. (ed.): IDIMT- -2006. Trauner, Linz.
• Potocan V. (2008), Management ethics: Interest vs. normative approaches. International journal of global business and economics, 1(1), pp. 62-68.
• Potocan V. (2009), What culture do we need for economic development? The Business Review, Cambridge, 12(1), pp. 102-107.
• Potocan V., Mulej M. (2007), Ethics of a sustainable enterprise - and the need for it. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 20(2), pp. 127-140.
• Potocan V., Mulej M. (2009), Toward a holistical perception of the content of business ethics. Kybernetes, 38(3/4), pp. 581-595.
• Potocan V., Nedelko Z., Mulej M. (2011), What is New with Organization of E-Business: Organizational Viewpoint of the Relationships in E-Business. In: Cruz-Cunha M., Varajao J. (eds.), E-business issues, challenges and opportunities for SMEs. Hershey, New York, pp. 131-148.
• Quick J., Nelson D. (2009), Principles of Organization Behavior: Realities and Changes. South-Western College, Boston.
• Quinn F. (2006), Growing the Customer: How to become customer-driven. The O'Brien Press, Dublin.
• Schermerhorn J. (2009), Management. Wiley, New York.
• Schultz W., Zelezny L. (1999), Values as predictors of environmental attitudes: Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(3), pp. 255-265.
• Senge P., Smith B., Kruschwitz N., Lau J., Schley S. (2008), The Necessary Revolution: How Individuals and Organizations Are Working Together to Create a Sustainable World. Dobleday, New York.
• Shaw W. (2007), Business Ethics. Wadsworth Publishing, New York.
• Singer P. (1999), Practical Ethics. Blackwell, Oxford.
• Stanwick P., Stanwick S. (2008), Understanding Business Ethics. Prentice Hall, New York.
• Thompson S., Barton M. (1994), Ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes toward the environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14(2), pp. 149-157.
• Trevino L., Nelson K. (2011), Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How to Do It Right. Wiley and Sons, New York.
• United Nations (UN), (1992), Rio Declaration. UN, Rio de Janeiro.
• Velasquez M. (2011), Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases. Prentice Hall, New York.
• White J. (2005), Contemporary Moral Problems. Wadsworth, Surrey.
• Whittaker D. (2009), Think Before Your Think: Social Complexity and Knowledge of Knowing. Wavestone Press, Oxon.
• Wilby J. (ed.), (2009), ISSS 2009 - Making Liveable, Sustainable Systems Unremarkable. In: Proc. of the 53rdAnnual Meeting of ANZSYS. ANZSYS, Brisbane.