Advertisement

My Brother’s Keeper: A New Phase in the Debate on Corporate Responsibility

  • Johan WempeEmail author
  • Willeke Slingerland
Chapter
  • 654 Downloads
Part of the Ethical Economy book series (SEEP, volume 51)

Abstract

In this article, we analyse whether it is possible to hold a loosely organised collective responsible for the effects it has on others. We consider the possibility of holding a loosely organised collective responsible by comparing it with a well-organised collective such as a corporation, a joint action (a collective lacking a formal organisation) and an aggregate. We explore the concept of responsibility of a loosely organised collective by analysing a concrete example: the responsibility of the major oil producers for climate change. We will argue that it is possible to apply the concept of responsibility to such loosely organised collectives. To understand this responsibility it is necessary to decouple the concept of responsibility from the concept of acting and to develop forward-looking (prospective) ethics. We will argue that individuals and organisations belonging to a loosely organised collective have a joint responsibility: to some extent, they are each other’s brother’s keeper.

Keywords

Business Ethic Moral Responsibility Joint Action Corporate Responsibility Collective Responsibility 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Copp, David. 1979. Collective actions and secondary actions. American Philosophical Quarterly 16(3): 177–186.Google Scholar
  2. Donaldson, Thomas. 1982. Corporations and morality. New York/Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Fourastié, Jean. 1966. Essais de morale prospective. Paris: Gonthie.Google Scholar
  4. French, Peter A. 1984. Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gansberg, Martin. 1964. Who saw murder didn’t call the police, New York Times, March 27.Google Scholar
  6. Gilbert, Margaret. 2000. Sociality and responsibility: New essays in plural subject theory. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  7. Hardin, Garret. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Held, Virginia. 1970. Can a random collection of individuals be responsible? Journal of Philosophy 67: 471–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kaptein, Muel, and Johan Wempe. 2002. The balanced company. A theory of corporate integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kutz, Christopher. 2000. Complicity ethics and law for a collective age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. May, Lary. 1987. The morality of groups. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  12. Spit, Ireneus W.M. 1986. Multisubjectieve Activiteit en Morele Verantwoordelijkheid. Thesis, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  13. Wempe, Johan. 2009. Industry and chain responsibilities and integrative social contract theory. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 751–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wempe, Johan. 2010. Chain responsibility. Collective responsibility of loosely structured organizations. In The collaborative enterprise. Creating values for a sustainable world, ed. Antonio Tencati and Laszlo Zsolnai, 267–288. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  15. Wempe, Johan. 2011. From task to role responsibility: Towards a prospective business ethics. In Business ethics and corporate sustainability. Studies in transatlantic business ethics series, ed. Antonio Tencati and Francesco Perrini, Ch. 3. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Wempe, Johan. 2015. Shell moet voortouw nemen in energietransitie. Volkskrant, 2 October. See: http://www.volkskrant.nl/opinie/shell-moet-voortouw-nemen-in-energietransitie~a4154821/. Accessed 22 May 2016.
  17. Werhane, Patricia H. 1985. Persons, rights and corporations. New York/Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.School of Governance, Law & Urban DevelopmentSaxion University of Applied SciencesEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations