Exploring responsibility

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this final paper in the special issue is to extend the critical conversation that has run through this journal about the meaning and practice of responsibility. It will draw together material from the other papers, summarise what is meant by responsibility and offer suggestions for further research. Design/methodology/approach -The paper takes the form of a critical analysis of the concept of responsibility in relation to practice. Findings -The paper argues for the importance of a holistic view of responsibility focused in individual and organisational practice of the virtues. Practical implications -The paper argues for increased dialogue between key stakeholders about the practice and development of responsibility, and for developments in pedagogy that will connect all aspects of ideas, values and practice. Social implications -There is typically a low level of appreciation of what responsibility means. This paper raises this awareness and identifies what responsibility looks like. It emphasises the importance of engraining a responsibility culture in the organisation, and continued dialogue between within, and beyond institutions. Originality/value -The paper provides a virtue-based approach that is based in critical dialogue, extending responsibility beyond conventional CSR thinking and providing the basis of what is a form of universal responsibility. This leads to a unique view of responsibility in culture and the curriculum.

How improved understanding of what constitutes “value” may lead to better underpinning of corporate social responsibility (CSR)

“…Value is indeed polysemic and vast. As is the case with Robinson and Smith (2012), whose paper is essentially about responsibility (citing value much more often than CSR), this paper broadens both the value and CSR literature. Value location (Table 1) was considered with influences discussed, i.e.…”

“…There is increasing scholastic interest towards managerial values and their role in CSR (Turker and Ozmen, 2017). However, conventional CSR thinking focuses largely on boundary discussions, target setting and mechanisms of reporting (Robinson and Smith, 2012). Hence, this paper builds on studies into value and/or CSR.…”

“…Not every article in the sample is about CSR. Indeed, there are articles in the JGR sample that are not inherently about CSR but allude to responsibility or value as issues (Robinson and Smith, 2012). It is often argued that meaning comes from usage (after Wittgenstein).…”

“…The aim of this conceptual paper, predicated on a hermeneutic literature review, is to improve understanding of the nature of value. It is a reflexively critical analysis of pertinent literature (Smythe & Spence, 2012;Robinson & Smith, 2012), providing insights into value's characteristics. It is not a review of the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) literature.…”

Two snapshots reinforcing systemic thinking and responsibility

“…As such while sustainability can be considered a secondary concept to responsibility (Robinson and Smith, 2012) it is our contention that a review of sustainable development through the snapshots of two key publications allows further understanding of the requirement for systemic thinking and thus responsible leadership. Not least because the humility enabled through viewing the earth from space Òinstructs us to think harder about how to reframe problemsÓ (Jasanoff, 2007, p.33).…”