Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T10:41:24.238Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The emergence of NGOs in the context of ethical and institutional complexity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Michael Yaziji  and
Jonathan Doh
Michael Yaziji
Affiliation:
IMD, Lausanne
Jonathan Doh
Affiliation:
Villanova University, Pennsylvania
Get access

Summary

What are the roles and responsibilities of the corporation? What should corporations do and not do? Where does the boundary lie between moral obligation and discretionary corporate action to improve societal wellbeing? As well as facing all the complexity involved in simply navigating toward a single goal of sustained profitable growth, firms are simultaneously being challenged about the appropriateness of such a singular goal. There are seemingly ever-increasing calls from various stakeholders such as NGOs, unions, financial markets and governments for businesses to take on additional social or economic goals beyond mere financial performance.

The evolution of complex responsibilities

At the very heart of this complexity is a single critical fact: firms increasingly operate under multiple, inexplicit, incomplete, often conflicting and continually re-negotiated social contracts and institutions. Social contracts can be defined as a real or hypothetical agreement expressing shared beliefs, norms and values concerning the rights and responsibilities of the state, non-state actors and citizens within a country. Institutions can be defined as highly resilient social and governance structures that express and enforce these beliefs, norms and values. These institutions govern firms' structures and behaviors, provide resources and define what is appropriate and what is not. Firms that are better at meeting institutional demands will tend to have greater legitimacy and thereby have better access to resources and improve their chances of survival.

The notion of a social contract dates back to Hobbes and Locke who envisioned a single implicit social contract between citizens and the sovereign.

Type
Chapter
Information
NGOs and Corporations
Conflict and Collaboration
 , pp. 33 - 45
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Scott, R. W., Institutions and Organizations (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001).Google Scholar
For more on neo-institutional theory, see Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (eds.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991). For a deeper discussion of the three pillars of institutional theory see Scott, Institutions and Organizations.Google Scholar
See, for example, Freeman, J., “The origins of the women's liberation movement,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1973), 79–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
For a comprehensive review of the “strategic” use of corporate social responsibility, see D. Vogel, The Market for Virtue: The Potential and Limits of Corporate Social Responsibility (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005).
Festinger, L., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957).Google Scholar
Jamieson, D. W., “The attitude ambivalence construct: Validity, utility, measurement,” Paper presented at the American Psychological Association, Toronto (1993)
Priester, J. R. and Petty, R. E., “The gradual threshold models of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (3) (1996), 431–449CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Priester, J. R. and Petty, R. E., “Extending the bases of subjective attitudinal ambivalence: Interpersonal and intrapersonal antecedents of evaluative tension,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (1) (2001), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. W., “Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory,” Academy of Management Review 19 (2) (1994), 252–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Donaldson, and Dunfee, , “Towards a unified conception”; Hobbes, T., Leviathan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)Google Scholar
Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977)Google Scholar
Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971)Google Scholar
Rawls, J., Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Hare, R., Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method and Point (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S., Utilitarianism (London: Oxford University Press, 1863/1988).Google Scholar
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T. and Sternberg, R. (eds.), The Nature of Leadership (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2004)Google Scholar
Bass, B., Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military, and Educational Impact (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998).Google Scholar
Chatman, J., “Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly 39 (4) (1991), 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaziji, M., “Turning gadflies into allies,” Harvard Business Review February (2004), 110–115.Google ScholarPubMed
Suchman, M. C., “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches,” Academy of Management Review 20 (3) (1995), 571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P., Leadership in Administration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957).Google Scholar
Votaw, D., Modern Corporations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965), pp. 96–97.Google Scholar
Dams, Dams and Development (London: Earthscan Publishers, 2000), dam commissions in North America dropped 90 percent from the 1960s to the 1990s, primarily because of various stakeholder concerns. Similarly, per capita cigarette consumption in the US has dropped by more than 50 percent (from 4,345 cigarettes per person in 1963 to 2,025 in 2000) according to the US Department of Agriculture's “Tobacco: Situation and Outlook,” various issues.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×