In this paper, we reflect on the role of the Other in ethical decision‐making in corporations. The Other, in the form of a corporation's stakeholders, has already been discussed in the scientific literature, but there are still some Others that remain unconsidered and that call on corporations to be responsible. Drawing on the philosophy of Levinas, we wish to highlight a green earth and future generations as two non‐immediate Others within a corporation's group of stakeholders whose voices are silenced. We argue that Levinasian ethics can be used as a framework to extend traditional stakeholder theory in a dynamic sphere. With this model, corporations can understand the vital role that both a green earth and future generations play in their existence and can respond to contingencies by considering delays. We enrich our paper with illustrative cases to present some serious environmental disasters that have occurred as a result of ignoring the Other. Finally, we show that understanding the Other as a part of a corporation's identity can create new avenues for “infinite responsibility” towards Others. We contribute to the relevant literature by highlighting that both a green earth and future generations are important but ignored stakeholder parties whose claims urgently need to be addressed.

Because knowledge is increasingly considered to be a key resource for companies, organizations must create and foster knowledge-sharing culture. A clear plan and strategy for knowledge creating, sharing it, and managing it provides sustainable competitive advantages for knowledge-based organizations. Knowledge as an important source of capital for an organization can only be created and managed properly and successfully in a healthy cultural environment. The knowledge stores of organizations are in the minds of their employees, and it is through the art of management that a climate and policy for converting this tacit and valuable knowledge into explicit knowledge is created. This study employs the health, safety, environment, and culture (HSEC) model as a managerial tool to help managers create a health and safety culture for creating and managing knowledge and also gain a real competitive advantage in this highly competitive era. According to this model, knowledge-based organizations must consider the role of cultural assessment, control risk, cultural hazards, and cultural syndromes when creating a health and safety culture. A successful HSEC model enables an organization to manage its complexity and uncertainty, improve performance, create competitive advantages, and enhance its business reputation. This model will create a deep understanding of a health and safety culture that facilitates the interaction and conversion process and also determines how the knowledge process should be developed and managed by identifying cultural hazards and risks.

Purpose To succeed in today’s dynamic and unpredictable business world, businesses are increasingly required to gain the trust of and inform the society in which they operate about the social and environmental consequences of their actions. Corporations’ claims regarding the responsibility and ethicality of their actions, however, have been shown to be contradictory to some degree. We define corporations’ deceitful implementation of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies as pseudo-CSR. We argue that it is the moral characteristics of individuals, i.e. employees, managers and other decision-makers who ignore the CSR policies, which produce pseudo-CSR. Design/methodology/approach This is a conceptual paper. Findings The authors conceptualize the gap between true CSR and pseudo-CSR on a cognitive individual level as “moral laxity,” resulting from organization-induced lack of effort concerning individual moral development through ethical discourse, ethical sensemaking and subjectification processes. The absence of these processes prohibits individuals in organizations from constructing ethical identities to inhibit pseudo-CSR activities. Originality/value This paper contributes to the literature on CSR by augmenting corporate-level responsibility with the hitherto mostly neglected, yet significant, role of the individual in bridging this gap.

No abstract