The Morality of Unequal Autonomy: Reviving Kant’s Concept of Status for Stakeholders

Castro, Susan V. H.

doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1737-8

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such firms are distinct legal entities devoid of an inherent moral imperative to behave virtuously. “Though vicious character may not be the sort of thing we can enforce—we cannot coerce people to do the right thing for the right reason—we can and should shame, shun and otherwise socially and personally impose consequences for failures of virtue” (Castro 2014, p.599). New power offers a mechanism by which interconnected consumers, providers, and communities can collaborate and impose value consequences in ways previously unavailable to stakeholders.…”

Section: Marketing Equitably In Response To Competitive Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…New power offers a mechanism by which interconnected consumers, providers, and communities can collaborate and impose value consequences in ways previously unavailable to stakeholders. Traditional firms are obliged to accept the public will insofar as that will is ostensibly moral and does not create an excessive, immoral burden (Castro 2014). In contrast, new-power firms create a democratic process whereby their products and revenue streams depend on public participation and thus focus on consumer-centric marketing practices (Heiman and Timms, 2014).…”

Section: Marketing Equitably In Response To Competitive Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why Consumers’ ‘New Power’ Will Change Marketing

Reynolds-Pearson

Hyman

2020

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because the sharing economy compels firm-stakeholder dynamics towards a multi-stakeholder market orientation (MSMO), the structures and power dynamics of sharing-economy firms differ markedly from traditional-economy firms. In this vein, we explore sharing-economy firms’ dependence on stakeholders (new power), the continual threat of new entrants (exponential organisations), and how these conditions combine to create additional stakeholder value by shifting Pareto efficient outcomes. We also discuss how previous scholarly efforts to impel traditional-economy firms toward stakeholder orientations failed because these firms generally treated stakeholder satisfaction as an optional rather than crucial goal for achieving sustainable competitive advantages. Finally, we argue that sharing-economy firms continue to disrupt markets, which increases every firm's need to explore value creation in theory and practice.

show abstract

Section: Marketing Equitably In Response To Competitive Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Marketing Equitably In Response To Competitive Forcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Consumers’ ‘New Power’ Will Change Marketing

Reynolds-Pearson

Hyman

2020

Australasian Marketing Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Aristotle's idea that ethical virtues are derived from the practice and articulation of constrains on action has given rise to the critique of capitalistic economics in the context of social justice (Gruioniu, 2014). Kant more directly addressed the idea of the status of stakeholders in his 'duty of beneficence' in which in which one individual or group owes unconditional obligation to regard the interests of other persons and groups (see Castro, 2014 andMansell, 2013). Others have applied a neo-utilitarian approach to stakeholder conflict that attempts to enhance stakeholder happiness by implementing principled choices when faced with policy options (Jones and Felps, 2013).…”

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

Philosophy of education in a new key: Constraints and possibilities in present times with regard to dignity

Roth

Mollvik

Alshoufani

et al. 2020

Educational Philosophy and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Price seems to be recognized in education and society at large in terms of how well one is doing in education and society, but not necessarily dignity. So, the question becomes the following: Can education also maintain the inner dignity of human beings, apart from their price, and what would that be (see Lia Mollvik below for a discussion on outer and inner dignity)? It is not uncommon in policy in many places throughout the world if not in most or all, that education recognize the price of children and young people through policy and practice by making it possible for them to cultivate their capacities to read, write and count, and to learn facts about, inter alia, the world, societies, universe and possible also themselves in order for them to become, inter alia, employable and efficacious on the job market. It is not either uncommon that their price is recognized in terms of the extent to which they submit to the values, norms of action related to specific narratives, practices and traditions in specific societies, but what exactly is it that they are supposed to confer a price on? Their price with regard to the extent to which they submit to their social, cultural, political or religious affiliation, their gender or sexuality, their diagnoses (see Rama Alshoufani below for a discussion on this latter theme), or their age (see Rebecca Adami below for a discussion on this issue)? Should their freedom to act upon their inclinations or submit to the circumstances of whatever kind, be that which should be given a price? Or that which conforms with their taste? Or is it their social skills, wit, imagination and humour that should be priced? Should any or all of that mentioned above be that which should be given a price? Or is it something else that ought to be respected, something of inner worth? And what would that be? And should that be recognized and maintained in and through education, other than that which is given a price of whatever kind in specific societies? It is, as said, not uncommon that some or many if not most or all of that which is mentioned above is given a price, that is, valued either positively or negatively, in societies, and that education is used as a means to cultivate valued capacities and reproduce that which is found to have a positive value such as, inter alia, specific facts, values and norms of action. If, however, any of the above are that which is given a value or price, it seems that people will be affected to come to learn that they too have a price as a means to some further end. That is, it seems that they can be inclined to come to learn that they are valued and given a price when they submit to any of the above. That in turn suggests that they will also at some point come to recognize that anyone can be replaced by someone else and its equivalent at some point (Kant, 2011, 4:434). They would then as an effect of this not necessarily come to recognize and respect the inherent value or dignity of persons, but merely the price to that which they submit and the extent to which th...

show abstract

The Morality of Unequal Autonomy: Reviving Kant’s Concept of Status for Stakeholders

Cited by 4 publications

References 35 publications

Why Consumers’ ‘New Power’ Will Change Marketing

Why Consumers’ ‘New Power’ Will Change Marketing

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

Philosophy of education in a new key: Constraints and possibilities in present times with regard to dignity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About