Advertisement

Ethical Blindness and Business Legitimacy

  • Kristian Høyer ToftEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Ethical blindness describes the temporary inability of a person to make moral judgments and acting morally in the context of working in an organization. Such a failure of moral judgment can be harmful and may damage the entire organization, its reputation, and public legitimacy. This chapter provides both an introductory overview and definition of the theory of “ethical blindness.” The chapter proceeds by first introducing to the general social phenomenon of ethical blindness. Then it presents the specific theory of ethical blindness proposed by Palazzo et al. (J Bus Ethics 109:323–338, 2012). The structure is as follows: First, the chapter shows how the theory relies on an epistemology of individuals’ cognitive propensity to be fallible in combination with a theory of individual “sensemaking” and “framing.” The sensemaking process is under external pressure from social contexts within the organization and its surrounding society. The possible outcome of inflexible and too “rigid framing” is ethical blindness – an incapacity to be sensitive to moral demands elicited by the situation. Second, the normative aspect of the theory is outlined to argue for a pluralistic democratizing of the business organization as a means to prevent ethical blindness in the organization. The theory of political CSR is suggested as a means to secure business legitimacy and counteract ethical blindness in organizations. Finally, the chapter concludes with a brief discussion of the practical usages of the theory of ethical blindness as a possible template for a tool to educate employees to withstand pressures that might lead to harmful ethical blindness in the working place.

Keywords

Ethical blindness Framing Sensemaking Moral imagination Political CSR 

References

  1. Alvesson M, Spicer A (2016) The stupidity paradox – the power and pitfalls of functional stupidity at work. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson E (2017) Private government: how employers rule our lives (and why we don't talk about it). Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendt H (1994 [1963]) Eichmann in Jerusalem. A report on the banality of evil. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Bovens L (2016) The ethics of Dieselgate. Midwest Stud Philos 40(1):262–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brenkert GG (2018) Mind the gap! The challenges and limits of (global) business ethics. J Bus Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3902-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenkert GG (2010) Whistle-blowing, moral integrity, and organizational ethics. In: Brenkert GG (ed) The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Cederström C, Marinetto M (2013) Corporate social responsibility á la the liberal communist. Organization 20(3):416–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ciepley D (2013) Beyond public and private: toward a political theory of the corporation. Am Polit Sci Rev 107(1):139–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. French P (1979) The corporation as a moral person. Am Philos Q 16(3):207–215Google Scholar
  10. Ghoshal S (2005) Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Acad Manag Learn Edu 4(1):75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gjerris M (2015) Willed blindness: a discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals. J Agric Environ Ethics 28(3):517–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gonin M, Palazzo G, Hoffrage U (2012) Neither bad apple nor bad barrel: how the societal context impacts unethical behavior in organizations. Bus Ethics Eur Rev 21:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Herzog L (2018) Reclaiming the system: moral responsibility, divided labour, and the role of organizations in society. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heugens PPMAR, Scherer AG (2010) When organization theory met business ethics: toward further symbioses. Bus Ethics Q 20(4):643–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Landemore H, Ferreras I (2016) In defense of workplace democracy: towards a justification of the firm-state analogy. Political Theory 44/1:53–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Matten D, Crane A (2005) Corporate citizenship: towards an extended theoretical conceptualization. Acad Manag Rev 30:166–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morgan G (1997) Images of organization. Sage Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Moriarty J (2005) On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Bus Ethics Q 15:455–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orts EW, Craig Smith N (2017) The moral responsibility of firms. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Palazzo G, Krings F, Hoffrage U (2012) Ethical blindness. J Bus Ethics 109:323–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pettit P (2007) Responsibility incorporated. Ethics 117(2):171–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rawls J (1994) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Rhodes C (2016) Democratic business ethics: Volkswagen’s emissions scandal and the disruption of corporate sovereignty. Organ Stud 37(10):1501–1518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sabadoz C, Singer A (2017) Talk ain’t cheap: political CSR and the challenges of corporate deliberation. Bus Ethics Q 27(02):183–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scherer AG, Palazzo G (2007) Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: business and society seen from a Habermasian perspective. Acad Manag Rev 32:1096–1120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Solomon R (1993) Ethics and excellence – cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Sørensen BM, Villadsen K (2018) Penis-whirling and pie-throwing: norm-defying and norm-setting drama in the creative industries. Hum Relat (New York) 71(8):1049–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Werhane PH (2008) Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization. J Bus Ethics 78(3):463–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Young IM (2001) Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29(5):670–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of OrganizationCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Culture and Learning, Center for Applied PhilosophyAalborg UniversityFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations