The Dialogue on the Implementation of Corporate Social Responsibility Standards as a Promoter of the Proper Exercise of Rights: An Approach Based on the Discourse Ethics of Jürgen Habermas
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18800/derechopucp.201001.011Keywords:
Interest groups, Discourse Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Jürgen HabermasAbstract
The purpose of this article is to contribute to clarify a discussion on the development scenario of the stakeholders in which the dialogue between companies and local groups could be guaranteed. The frame of reference that the author takes is the foundation of Habermas's discourse ethics. As an essay, the author starts from practical ethics and legal theory, presents the most important premises about what corporate social responsibility is from the interest group theory approach; with an emphasis on local communities; In addition, he tries to explain the reasons that justify why companies —especially extractive ones— have social responsibilities, exposing the most outstanding criticisms against the CSR approach and how such arguments suffer from drawbacks in their foundation. He proposes to understand CSR from the importance of dialogue understood from the theory of discursive ethics of Jürgen Habermas. Finally, it is about demonstrating how this habermasian approach of dialogue in CSR consolidates the proper exercise of rights.
Downloads
References
Baron, D. (2001). Private politics, corporate social responsibility, and integrated strategy (p. 768). En Research Papers. Stanford University Graduate School of Business.
Carroll, A. y A.K. Buchholtz. (2006). Business & society. En Ethics and Stakeholder Management. Sexta edición. Mason Ohio: South Western Lenguage Learning.
Carroll, A. (1999). Corporate social responsibility: evolution of a definitional construct (pp 268-295). Business and Society Nº 38 (3).
Carroll, A. (1998). The four faces of corporate citizenship (pp 1998). En Business and Society Review, Nº 100/101.
Carroll, A. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders. En Business Horizons, julio – agosto.
Carroll, A. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. En Academy of Management Review(pp 497-505). Nº 4.
Clarckson, M.B.E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance (pp. 92-117). En Academy of Management Review, vol. 20.
De George, R.T. (1996). Business ethics. Cuarta edición. Nueva Yersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall, 1996.
Donaldson T. y T. Dunfee. (1999). Ties that bind: a social contract approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Endress, B. (1996). Habermas and critical thinking
Fisher, J. (2004). Social responsibility and ethics: clarifying the concepts (pp396). En Journal of Business Ethics, Nº 52.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation (pp. 171-181). En L. Princus (editor). Perspectives in business ethics. Chicago: McGraw Hill.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, 13 de septiembre.
Garriga, E y D. Melé. (2004) Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory(pp.51-71). En Journal of Business Ethics, Nº 53.
Habermas, J. (2000). Aclaraciones a la ética del discurso. Madrid: Editorial Trotta
Habermas, J (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press
Habermas,J (1991). Escritos sobre moralidad y eticidad. Barcelona: Paidós
Mcalister, T., O.C. Ferrel y L. Ferrel (editores). (2005). Business and society. a strategic approach to social responsibility (p 211). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
McWilliams, A., y D. Siegel (2000). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: correlation or misspecification? (p. 607). En Strategic Management Journal, Nº 21 (5).
Morsing, M. y Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies (pp 324-325). En Business Ethics: A European Review, vol. 15, Nº 4.
Reed, D. (1999). Three realms of corporate social responsibility (pp.23-35). En Journal of Business Ethics, Nº 21.
Rowley. T. J. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: a network theory of stakeholders influences. En Academy of Management Review, Nº 22 (4).
S. Kagan. (1998). Normative ethics (p 4). Boulder: Westview Press.
T. Beauchamp y N. Bowie (editores). (1998). Ethical theory and business (pp 75- 93). Nueva York: Prentice Hall.
Trevino, L. K. y D.A. Nelson. (1999). Managing business ethics. Segunda edición. Nueva York: Wiley.
Werhane, P.H. (1994). The moral responsibility of multinational corporations to be socially responsible (pp 136-142). En Hoffman, W. et. al (editores). Emerging global business ethics. Connecticut: Bentley College.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Derecho PUCP
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
