Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Journal of Business Ethics
Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics 1/2012

01.03.2012

The Firm as a “Community of Persons”: A Pillar of Humanistic Business Ethos

verfasst von: Domènec Melé

Erschienen in: Journal of Business Ethics | Ausgabe 1/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The article starts by arguing that seeing the firm as a mere nexus of contracts or as an abstract entity where different stakeholder interests concur is insufficient for a “humanistic business ethos”, which entails a complete view of the human being. It seems more appropriate to understand the firm as a human community, a concept which can be found in several sources, including managerial literature, business ethics scholars, and Catholic Social Teaching. In addition, there are also philosophical grounds that support the idea of business as a human community. Extending this concept, and drawing from some Phenomenological-Personalist philosophers, we propose that the firm should be seen as a particular “community of persons” oriented to providing goods and services efficiently and profitably. Being a “community of persons” emphasizes both individuals and the whole, and makes explicit the uniqueness, conscience, free will, dignity, and openness to human flourishing. This requires appropriate communication about and participation in matters which affect people’s life, and makes it essential to cooperate for the common good of the business firm and the society.
Vorheriger Artikel Development of Norms Through Compliance Disclosure
Nächster Artikel The Italian Economia Aziendale and Catholic Social Teaching: How to Apply the Common Good Principle at the Managerial Level

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
3
See also Coase (1991a, b), where he explains the meaning and influence of this seminal article.
 
4
This is made explicit in Evan and Freeman (1988, p. 151) and Freeman (1997, p. 71).
 
5
Online Etymology Dictionary: http://​www.​etymonline.​com/​index.​php?​term=​community, Accessed June 29, 2010.
 
6
More than 50 years ago, Hillery (1955, p. 111) found 94 discrete definitions of the term ‘community’.
 
7
Similarly, this approach can be applied to the practice of networking (Melé, 2010). As Finnis (1980) noted, these three kinds of relationship can already be found in Aristotle’s treatise on friendship, elaborated after a careful observation of reality in Nicomachean Ethics, chap. VIII.
 
8
Explained in a very simple way, the phenomenological method introduced by Edmund Husserl focuses purely on phenomena and on describing them. It consists of recognizing the presence of an object and elucidating its meaning through intuition.
 
9
He enriched the philosophical anthropology learned from Aquinas with insights taken from the phenomenology of the philosopher Max Scheller.
 
10
“Person” in Online Etymology Dictionary: http://​www.​etymonline.​com/​index.​php?​search=​persona&​searchmode=​none. Accessed on January 18, 2011.
 
Literatur
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.
Aristotle. (1925). The Nicomachean Ethics (D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aristotle. (1981). The Politics (T. A. Sinclair & T. J. Saunders, Trans.). London: Penguin.
Barnard, C. (1968/1938). The Functions of the Executive. Introduction of K. Andrews London: Oxford University Press.
Brenkert, G. G. (1992). Freedom, participation and corporations: The issue of corporate (economic) democracy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 251–269.CrossRef
Burns, J. M. (1979). Leadership. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Buttiglione, R. (1997). Karol Wojtyla: The thought of the man who became Pope John Paul II (Foreword by M. Novak. P. Guietti & F. Murphy, Trans.). Grand Rapids, MI: WmB Eerdmans Publishers.
Castro, B. (1999). Faust and the ethos of business: A report from Grand Rapids, Ciudad Juarez, and Muskegon. Journal of Business Ethics, 19/1(2), 181–191.CrossRef
Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 92, 92–117.
Coase, R. H. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica 4, 386–405 (Reprinted in The nature of the firm: Origins, evolution, and development: 1961–1974, by O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter, Eds., 1991, New York: Oxford University Press).
Coase, R. H. (1991a). The nature of the firm: Meaning. In O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins evolution and development (pp. 48–60). New York: Oxford University Press.
Coase, R. H. (1991b). The nature of the firm: Influence. In O. E. Williamson & S. G. Winter (Eds.), The nature of the firm: Origins evolution and development (pp. 61–74). New York: Oxford University Press.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. B. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Crosby, J. F. (1996). The selfhood of the human person. Washington: Catholic University of America Press.
Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 96–106.CrossRef
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Etzioni, A. (2001). The monochrome society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian Capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed., pp. 145–154). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Ferrer, U. (2002). Qué significa ser persona?. Madrid: Palabra.
Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Follett, M. P. (1940). Dynamic administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, ed. by H. C. Metcalf y L. Urwick. New York, London: Harper & Brothers.
Fort, T. L. (1996). Business as mediating institutions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(2), 149–164.CrossRef
Fort, T. (2000). On social psychology, business ethics, and corporate governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 725–733.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (1997). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation. In T. L. Beauchamp & N. E. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (5th ed., pp. 66–76). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the Millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E., & Liedtka, J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–99.CrossRef
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.CrossRef
Gittell, J. H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the power of relationships to achieve high performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hartman, E. M. (1994). The commons and the moral organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 253–269.CrossRef
Hessen, R. (1979). In defense of the corporation. Stanford University Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution.
Hillery, G. A., Jr. (1955). Definitions of community—areas of agreement. Rural Sociology, 20(4), 111–123.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior agency cost, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3, 305–360.CrossRef
Keeley, M. (1995). Continuing the social contract tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(2), 241–256.CrossRef
Koehn, D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 533–539.CrossRef
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.CrossRef
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1995). Knowledge, market failure and the multinational enterprise: A reply. Journal of International Business Studies, 26, 417–426.CrossRef
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. New York: Free Press.
Lawler, E., & Thye, S. R. (1999). Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 25(1), 217–244.CrossRef
Leana, C. R., & Van Buren III, H. J. (1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 538–555.
MacIntryre, A. (1984/1981). After virtue. A study in moral theory (2nd ed.) Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.
Melé, D. (2003). The challenge of humanistic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(44), 77–88.CrossRef
Melé, D. (2009). Integrating personalism into virtue-based business ethics: The personalist and the common good principles. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1), 227–244.CrossRef
Melé, D. (2010). The practice of networking: An ethical approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(4), 487–503.CrossRef
Melé, D., & Rosanas, J. M. (2003). Power, freedom and authority in management: Mary Parket Follett’s ‘Power-with’. Philosophy of Management, 3(2), 35–46.
Messick, D. M. (1998). Social categories and business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue. The Ruffin Series (1), 149–172.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Ouchi, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ouchi, W. G., & Jaeger, A. M. (1978). Type Z organization: Stability in the midst of mobility. Academy of Management Review, 3(2), 305–314.
Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Goshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 96–100.CrossRef
Pfeffer, J. (2006). Working alone: What ever happened to the idea of organizations as communities? In J. O’Toole & E. E. Lawler III (Eds.), America at work: Choices and challenges. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 2–21.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1, 78–95.CrossRef
Reade, C. (2001). Antecedents of organizational identification in multinational corporations: Fostering psychological attachment to the local subsidiary and the global organization. Human Resource Management, 12(8), 1269–1291.CrossRef
Rheingold, H. (2002). Smart mobs. Cambridge: Perseus.
Riketta, M., & Landerer, A. (2005). Does perceived threat to organizational status moderate the relation between organizational commitment and work behavior? International Journal of Management, 22(2), 193–200.
Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 585–619.CrossRef
Ross, S. (1973). The economy theory of the agency: the principal’s problem. American Economic Review, 63, 134–139.
Rotondi, T., Jr. (1975). Organizational identification: Issues and implications. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 95–109.CrossRef
Sampson, A. (1995). Company man: The rise and fall of the corporate life. New York: Times Business.
Schein, E. H. (1997). Corporate culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Solomon, R. C. (1992). Ethics and excellence. Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.
Solomon, R. (1994). The corporation as community. A reply to Ed Hartmann. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 271–285.CrossRef
Solomon, R. (2000). Historicism, communitarianism, and commerce: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics. In P. Koslowski (Ed.), Contemporary economic ethics and business ethics. Berlin: Springer, pp. 117–147.
Solomon, R. C. (2004). Aristotle, ethics and business organizations. Organization Studies, 25(6), 1021–1043.CrossRef
Spaemann, R. (2006). Persons: The difference between ‘someone’ and ‘something’ (O. O’Donovan, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stein, E. (1989). On the problem of empathy (W. Stein, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.
Stein, E. (1998). La estructura de la persona humana (first published in German as ‘Der aufbau der menschlichenperson’, 1994) (BAC Madrid).
Tönnies, F. (2001/1887). Community and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wojtyla, K. (1979). The acting person. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel (Translated from Polish by Andrzej Potocki and edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka. Originally published in 1969).
Wojtyla, K. (1981). Love and responsibility (first published in Polish, Miłość i Odpowiedzialnosc. Studium etyczne. Lublin: KUL, 1960). San Francisco: Harper-Collins.
Wojtyla, K. (1993). Person and community. Selected essays (O. Theresa Sandok, Trans.). New York: Peter Lang.
Woller, G. M. (1996). Business ethics, society, and Adam Smith: Some observations on the liberal business ethos. Journal of Socio-Economics, 25(3), 311–332.CrossRef
Zaborowski, H. (2010). Robert Spaemann’s philosophy of the human person: Nature, freedom, and the critique of modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The Firm as a “Community of Persons”: A Pillar of Humanistic Business Ethos
verfasst von
Domènec Melé
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2012
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Journal of Business Ethics / Ausgabe 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1051-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2012

Journal of Business Ethics 1/2012 Zur Ausgabe

OriginalPaper

The Causal Effect of Corporate Governance on Corporate Social Responsibility

OriginalPaper

Development of Norms Through Compliance Disclosure

EditorialNotes

Which Values for Which Organization. Introduction to the Special Issue of the EBEN AC 2010 Conference

OriginalPaper

Do Consumers Care About Ethical-Luxury?

OriginalPaper

Three Ethical Roots of the Economic Crisis

OriginalPaper

Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-optation

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise