Skip to main content

Integrity and Positive Responsibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Practice of Integrity in Business
  • 749 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter begins to explore the third mode of responsibility: responsibility for. The importance of this mode of responsibility is that it moves us specifically into the ‘walk’, the taking action of integrity. However, as we might expect from the reflection on the other modes of responsibility, it does not supply us with any easier guidance for integrity. The case of Nestlé is used to introduce the complexities of responsibility in practice. This will introduce positive responsibility (as distinct from legal liability), moving beyond accountability, into responsibility for projects, people, purpose or place.

Some the great post-Holocaust thinkers argue from this for a sense of universal responsibility. Jonas takes this further, arguing for a sense of ultimate accountability to and responsibility for future generations and the environment. The chapter details that responsibility in the light of the Nestlé case and how it informs a view of proactive integrity which involves: a sense of multiple responsibility for clients, colleagues, profession, community and so on; the assumption of responsibility in grey areas not assigned to roles, avoiding denial of responsibility; further development of ethical identity through negotiation of responsibility; the development of shared and mutual responsibility as distinct from shared interest; focus on positive creative action through the increase in possibilities and pathways, further developing identity; and the practice of justice and sustainability through shared responsibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    De George notes that debates about justice are a key feature in international business ethics; R. De George, International Business Ethics, in R. Frederick (ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics (Oxford: Blackwells, 233–242).

  2. 2.

    Used, for instance, to determine the regional language to be used for marketing in areas where several different languages were used.

References

  • Arendt, H. (1991). Organized guilt and universal responsibility. In L. May & H. Hoffman (Eds.), Collective responsibility: Five decades of debate in theoretical and applied ethics. Savage: Rowbottom and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1989). Modernity and the Holocaust. London: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlin, I. (1968). Two concepts of liberty. In A. Quinton (Ed.), Political philosophy (pp. 141–155). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbacher, D. (2001). Philosophical foundations of responsibility. In A. Auhagen & H.-W. Bierhoff (Eds.), Responsibility: The many faces of a social phenomenon (pp. 9–22). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabeck-Letmathe, P. (2015). http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/24/Nestlé-chairman-time-to-turn-off-the-water-taps.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. (2005). Corporate integrity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corfino, J. (2013). http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/Nestlé-peter-brabeck-attitude-water-change-stewardship

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of ‘creating shared value’. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De George, R. (1999). International business ethics. In R. Frederick (Ed.), A companion to business ethics (pp. 233–242). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1993). Negotiating family responsibilities. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, R., and Morely, D. (1973). The baby food tragedy. New Internationalist, August, Issue 006.

    Google Scholar 

  • IGBM (1997). Cracking the code. London: IGBM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelliffe, D. (1971). Commerciogenic malnutrition? Time for a dialogue. Food Technology, 15, 55–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaldor, M. (2003). Civil society and accountability. Journal of Human Development, 4(1), 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederach, J. P. (2005). The moral imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levinas, E. (1998). Entre nous; the thinking of the other. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovelock, J. (1979). Gaia: A new look at life on earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2001). The ethics of integrity: Educational values beyond postmodern ethics. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 35(1), 47–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, L. (1992). Sharing responsibility. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. (2013). http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/Nestlé-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestlé, H. (1869). Memorial on the nutrition of infants. Vevey: Loertscher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nestlé, H. (2014). http://www.Nestlé.com/asset-library/documents/library/documents/corporate_social_responsibility/Nestlé-commitment-water-stewardship.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, L. (1999). Truth is the daughter of time: The real story of the Nestlé case. Business and Society Review, 104(4), 367–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyugi, J. (2012). Watering their graves: Breast milk substitutes and supplements in developing countries. wH2o: The Journal of Gender and Water, 1(1), 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (2011). Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 11 November 2015, from http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/sb1

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism—And unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, January–February 2011, pp. 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (2000). The concept of responsibility: An essay in semantic analysis. In The just (trans. D. Pellauer). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. (2015). Islam, responsibility and business in the thought of Fethullah Gulen. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., Dixon, R., Preece, C., & Moodley, C. (2012). Engineering, professional and business ethics. London: Heinemann Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, J. (2007). The home we build together: Recreating society. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sethi, S. (2012). Multinational corporations and the impact of public advocacy on corporate strategy. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2004). One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, W. (1997). Spirituality and ethics. Theological Studies, 58, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunday Times. (2014). Retrieved 25 October 2015, from http://livewire.amnesty.org/2010/02/14/amnesty-international-response-to-the-sunday-times/

    Google Scholar 

  • UNICEF (1993). An end to ambiguities. New York: UNICEF.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Robinson, S. (2016). Integrity and Positive Responsibility. In: The Practice of Integrity in Business. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51553-7_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics