Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test
Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of business ethics 2013-04, Vol.114 (1), p.171-182 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 182 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 171 |
container_title | Journal of business ethics |
container_volume | 114 |
creator | Szmigin, Isabelle Rutherford, Robert |
description | Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer's (Harv Bus Rev 89(January—February):64—77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the 'separation thesis' between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89—118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541—548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of 'sympathy', we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1364722370</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>23433657</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>23433657</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-c0675e72dc6c6988cd1030cd4b735d7f21ecb407362409d7fee6b1aa621bae733</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LwzAYx4MoOKcfwINQEMFLNE9em6MMXwaCh02vIU1T19G1M2kPfnszOlQ8mEMCye_5Pw-_IHQO5AYIUbcRiBCACVAMjAkMB2gCQjFMpFaHaEJAKswF58foJMY1SUsAnyC8WNngy-zNNoPPbFtm_cpn883Whr62TbbYetfbvgvZ0sf-FB1Vton-bH9O0evD_XL2hJ9fHuezu2fsuM577IhUwitaOumkznNXAmHElbxQTJSqouBdwYliknKi04X3sgBrJYXCesXYFF2PudvQfQypsdnU0fmmsa3vhmiASa4oZYok9PIPuu6G0KbpEiWkVJponigYKRe6GIOvzDbUGxs-DRCzE2hGgSYJNDuBaZuiq32yjc42VbCtq-N3IVVM5VrpxNGRi-mpfffh1wT_hF-MReuY5P6EMs6YTP_2BSQ1hr8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1356679094</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Szmigin, Isabelle ; Rutherford, Robert</creator><creatorcontrib>Szmigin, Isabelle ; Rutherford, Robert</creatorcontrib><description>Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer's (Harv Bus Rev 89(January—February):64—77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the 'separation thesis' between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89—118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541—548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of 'sympathy', we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0167-4544</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-0697</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JBUEDJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer</publisher><subject>21st century ; Business and Management ; Business Ethics ; Capitalism ; Corporate responsibility ; Corporate social responsibility ; Customers ; Economists ; Education ; Enterprises ; Ethical behavior ; Ethical consumerism ; Ethics ; Ethics and moral life ; Inequality ; Management ; Moral judgment ; Morality ; Philosophy ; Quality of Life Research ; Recessions ; Self interest ; Smith, Adam ; Social ethics ; Social responsibility ; Society ; Sociology ; Sociology of knowledge and ethics ; Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture ; Sociology of organizations and enterprises. Bureaucracy and administration ; Sociology of work and sociology of organizations ; Studies ; Values</subject><ispartof>Journal of business ethics, 2013-04, Vol.114 (1), p.171-182</ispartof><rights>Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht 2013</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-c0675e72dc6c6988cd1030cd4b735d7f21ecb407362409d7fee6b1aa621bae733</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-c0675e72dc6c6988cd1030cd4b735d7f21ecb407362409d7fee6b1aa621bae733</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23433657$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23433657$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27866,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=27378979$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Szmigin, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Robert</creatorcontrib><title>Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test</title><title>Journal of business ethics</title><addtitle>J Bus Ethics</addtitle><description>Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer's (Harv Bus Rev 89(January—February):64—77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the 'separation thesis' between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89—118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541—548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of 'sympathy', we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value.</description><subject>21st century</subject><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Business Ethics</subject><subject>Capitalism</subject><subject>Corporate responsibility</subject><subject>Corporate social responsibility</subject><subject>Customers</subject><subject>Economists</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Enterprises</subject><subject>Ethical behavior</subject><subject>Ethical consumerism</subject><subject>Ethics</subject><subject>Ethics and moral life</subject><subject>Inequality</subject><subject>Management</subject><subject>Moral judgment</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Quality of Life Research</subject><subject>Recessions</subject><subject>Self interest</subject><subject>Smith, Adam</subject><subject>Social ethics</subject><subject>Social responsibility</subject><subject>Society</subject><subject>Sociology</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</subject><subject>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</subject><subject>Sociology of organizations and enterprises. Bureaucracy and administration</subject><subject>Sociology of work and sociology of organizations</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Values</subject><issn>0167-4544</issn><issn>1573-0697</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1LwzAYx4MoOKcfwINQEMFLNE9em6MMXwaCh02vIU1T19G1M2kPfnszOlQ8mEMCye_5Pw-_IHQO5AYIUbcRiBCACVAMjAkMB2gCQjFMpFaHaEJAKswF58foJMY1SUsAnyC8WNngy-zNNoPPbFtm_cpn883Whr62TbbYetfbvgvZ0sf-FB1Vton-bH9O0evD_XL2hJ9fHuezu2fsuM577IhUwitaOumkznNXAmHElbxQTJSqouBdwYliknKi04X3sgBrJYXCesXYFF2PudvQfQypsdnU0fmmsa3vhmiASa4oZYok9PIPuu6G0KbpEiWkVJponigYKRe6GIOvzDbUGxs-DRCzE2hGgSYJNDuBaZuiq32yjc42VbCtq-N3IVVM5VrpxNGRi-mpfffh1wT_hF-MReuY5P6EMs6YTP_2BSQ1hr8</recordid><startdate>20130401</startdate><enddate>20130401</enddate><creator>Szmigin, Isabelle</creator><creator>Rutherford, Robert</creator><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88J</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130401</creationdate><title>Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test</title><author>Szmigin, Isabelle ; Rutherford, Robert</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c498t-c0675e72dc6c6988cd1030cd4b735d7f21ecb407362409d7fee6b1aa621bae733</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>21st century</topic><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Business Ethics</topic><topic>Capitalism</topic><topic>Corporate responsibility</topic><topic>Corporate social responsibility</topic><topic>Customers</topic><topic>Economists</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Enterprises</topic><topic>Ethical behavior</topic><topic>Ethical consumerism</topic><topic>Ethics</topic><topic>Ethics and moral life</topic><topic>Inequality</topic><topic>Management</topic><topic>Moral judgment</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Quality of Life Research</topic><topic>Recessions</topic><topic>Self interest</topic><topic>Smith, Adam</topic><topic>Social ethics</topic><topic>Social responsibility</topic><topic>Society</topic><topic>Sociology</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and ethics</topic><topic>Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture</topic><topic>Sociology of organizations and enterprises. Bureaucracy and administration</topic><topic>Sociology of work and sociology of organizations</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Values</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Szmigin, Isabelle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rutherford, Robert</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Social Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Access via Art, Design & Architecture Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of business ethics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Szmigin, Isabelle</au><au>Rutherford, Robert</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test</atitle><jtitle>Journal of business ethics</jtitle><stitle>J Bus Ethics</stitle><date>2013-04-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>171</spage><epage>182</epage><pages>171-182</pages><issn>0167-4544</issn><eissn>1573-0697</eissn><coden>JBUEDJ</coden><abstract>Growing inequality and its implications for democratic polity suggest that corporate social responsibility (CSR) has not proved itself in twenty-first century business, largely as it lacks clear criteria of demarcation for businesses to follow. Today the problem is viewed by many commentators as an ethical challenge to business itself. In response to this challenge, we begin by examining Porter and Kramer's (Harv Bus Rev 89(January—February):64—77, 2011) call for a shift from a social responsibility to a shared value framework and the need to respond to the problem of the 'separation thesis' between business and ethics (Wicks, Bus Soc 35(1):89—118, 1996; Harris and Freeman, Bus Ethics Q 18(4):541—548, 2008). We identify the eighteenth century economist and philosopher Adam Smith in his book The Theory of Moral Sentiments as a source for an ethical approach to business. Building on his central concept of 'sympathy', we introduce the idea of the Impartial Spectator Test, which we argue builds on traditional stakeholder perspectives and which provides an objective route to ethical criteria of demarcation. We conclude by assessing how this approach adds to the existing debate around social responsibility and shared value.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer</pub><doi>10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0167-4544 |
ispartof | Journal of business ethics, 2013-04, Vol.114 (1), p.171-182 |
issn | 0167-4544 1573-0697 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1364722370 |
source | PAIS Index; SpringerNature Journals; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing; EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | 21st century Business and Management Business Ethics Capitalism Corporate responsibility Corporate social responsibility Customers Economists Education Enterprises Ethical behavior Ethical consumerism Ethics Ethics and moral life Inequality Management Moral judgment Morality Philosophy Quality of Life Research Recessions Self interest Smith, Adam Social ethics Social responsibility Society Sociology Sociology of knowledge and ethics Sociology of knowledge and sociology of culture Sociology of organizations and enterprises. Bureaucracy and administration Sociology of work and sociology of organizations Studies Values |
title | Shared Value and the Impartial Spectator Test |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T20%3A38%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Shared%20Value%20and%20the%20Impartial%20Spectator%20Test&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20business%20ethics&rft.au=Szmigin,%20Isabelle&rft.date=2013-04-01&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=171&rft.epage=182&rft.pages=171-182&rft.issn=0167-4544&rft.eissn=1573-0697&rft.coden=JBUEDJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10551-012-1335-1&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E23433657%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1356679094&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=23433657&rfr_iscdi=true |