Corporate Social Responsibility, Utilitarianism, and the Capabilities Approach

Renouard, Cécile

doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0536-8

Cited by 77 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Alongside the rise of charismatic-transformational leadership has been the growing volume of calls for organisations to act in an ethical fashion (Dunphy et al 2007;Jones et al 2000;Hitt et al 2009;Rhodes et al 2010;Wines 2008). Prominent in this respect has been the promotion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by national governments and international bodies, especially the United Nations (Garriga and Melé 2004;Li and Zhang 2010;Matten and Moon 2004;Renouard 2011;United Nations 2010).…”

Section: Leadership and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity

Burnes

2011

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the relationship between the ethics underpinning leadership and change. It examines the developments in leadership and change over the last three decades and their ethical implications. It adopts a consequentialist perspective on ethics and uses this to explore different approaches to leadership and change. In particular, the article focuses on individual (egoistic) consequentialism and utilitarian consequentialism. The article argues that all leadership styles and all approaches to change are rooted in a set of values, some of which are more likely to lead to ethical outcomes than others. It also argues that all stakeholders in an organisation have a role to play in ensuring ethical outcomes. It concludes that in order to achieve sustainable and beneficial change, those who promote and adopt particular approaches to leadership and change must provide greater ethical clarity about the approaches they are championing

show abstract

Section: Leadership and Ethicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity

Burnes

2011

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stakeholders and their importance for social capital have been well documented in literature, with a particular emphasis on the distinctions between their organizational and societal commitments (Phillips ; Plaza‐Ubeda, de Burgos‐Jimenez, and Carmona‐Moreno ; Russo and Perrini ; Sobczak and Girard ). The potentially different stakeholder agendas (Renouard ) as well as the different sources of power that define stakeholder categories (Greenwood and Van Buren ) and eventually describe degrees of respective influence to the organization have also been well documented in the relevant literature. The focus on social capital has also been well substantiated in the field of entrepreneurship, emphasizing relationships, trust, rules, networks, and implicated resources (Nikolopoulos ; Svendsen and Svendsen ; Westlund and Bolton ).…”

Section: Theoretical Framework As Synthesis: Multiple Capitals Involvmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Entrepreneurship betweenCross-Currents: Toward a Framework for Theoretical Restructuring of the Field

Nicolopoulou¹

2014

Journal of Small Business Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have characterized social entrepreneurship as an “accumulative fragmentalism,” primarily characterized by the use of case studies featuring prominent and innovative profiles of social enterprises and entrepreneurs. However, today, social entrepreneurship is between cross‐currents. On the one hand, it seeks, as a subfield, to solidify its theoretical and methodological underpinnings and standpoints. On the other hand, it is consistently exposed to field expansion, given that a number of its underlying frameworks, commonly shared with other fields (such as sustainability and corporate social responsibility [CSR]), are opening up to wider vistas of conceptualization and theorization. This is often through the influence of practice as well as theory. The contribution of the paper is threefold. First, it enhances our understanding of social entrepreneurship field development by identifying cross‐currents and by highlighting new angles for paradigmatic and theoretical positioning. Second, it implements a framework that scholars previously employed within the original field of entrepreneurship (Bourdieu's theory of capitals and their transformations); in doing so, it also proceeds to propose an enrichment to the framework by including additional capitals that are specifically relevant for the field of social entrepreneurship and that are influenced by common agendas, as those exist in the fields of sustainability and CSR. Third, it offers insights for theory, as well as practice, which relate to understandings from the first two contributions.

show abstract

“…Renouard (2011) defines corporate social responsibility to include the relationships that exist both within and between various stakeholder groups. These relational interests are often derivative rather than normative in that societal relationships can often have an impact on corporations and thus must be considered in the governance process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Interests from Behind the Veil: A Rawlsian Approach to Ethical Corporate Governance

Evans

Evans²

2014

MOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every corporation and organization has stakeholders: individuals and groups to whom they owe consideration in governance decisions and who, in turn, can exert influence on the corporation and other stakeholders. Legitimate stakeholders include the owners, managers, employees, consumers, taxpayers, community members, supply chain members and society as a whole. The problem is that the interests of these stakeholders are often in conflict with one another. Although the legitimacy of stakeholder interests is well established, how to unravel the morass of conflicting stakeholder interests is not so clear due to the fact that stakeholders often argue from positions of their own self-interest. We propose an approach inspired by John Rawls' idea of fairness that proposes an original position behind a veil of ignorance. Stakeholder interests can be assessed and weighted more fairly if we begin with the assumption that we do not know which stakeholder group we will ultimately occupy. Thus, when specific governance decisions are being considered, the relative weight of stakeholder interests can be established with fairness without the confounding influence of arguments based on self-interest.

show abstract

Corporate Social Responsibility, Utilitarianism, and the Capabilities Approach

Abstract: capabilities approach, corporate social responsibility, Mill, Nussbaum, relational capability, Sen, utilitarianism,

Cited by 77 publications

References 44 publications

Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity

Leadership and Change: The Case for Greater Ethical Clarity

Social Entrepreneurship betweenCross-Currents: Toward a Framework for Theoretical Restructuring of the Field

Stakeholder Interests from Behind the Veil: A Rawlsian Approach to Ethical Corporate Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About