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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of business ethics 2013-04, Vol.114 (1), p.171-182
Hauptverfasser: Szmigin, Isabelle, Rutherford, Robert
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&amp;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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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