Abstract
The way in which accountability is currently employed in business ethics practice is based on a few central assumptions. It is assumed, for instance, that ethical failures result from the deliberate, rational decision-making of moral agents. A second important assumption is that there is a direct cause and effect relationship between the decisions and actions of individuals and the consequences of those decisions. Furthermore, the current approach towards accountability failures relies on the ability on legal sanctions to deter agents from ethical lapses. This paper will argue that these three assumptions do not survive critical interrogation and that our understanding of accountability therefore has to be reconsidered. It will propose that accountability be reconceived as a relational responsiveness towards stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baumard P. (2004) Tacit Knowledge in Organizations. SAGE, London
Butler J. (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. Fordham University Press, NY
Bourdieu P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Foucault M. (1972) The Archeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books, NY
Foucault M. (1994). Foucault: Ethics, The Essential Works I. The Penguin Press, London
Freeman E. R. (2001) Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation. In: Hoffman W. M, Frederick R. E., Schwartz M. S. (eds) Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality. McGraw Hill, Boston
Freeman E. R. (2001) Stakeholder Theory of the Modern Corporation. In: Hoffman W. M, Frederick R. E., Schwartz M. S. (eds) Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality. McGraw Hill, Boston
Frederick W. C. (1995) Values, Nature, and Culture in the American Corporation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Kikoski C. K., Kikoski J. F. (2004) The Inquiring Organization. Tacit Knowledge, Conversation, and Knowledge Creation: Skills for 21st-Century Organizations. Praeger, London
Lakoff G., Johnson M. (1999) Philosophy in the Flesh. The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. Basic Books, NY
MacIntyre A. (1999) Social Structures and their Threats to Moral Agency. Philosophy Today 74:311–329
Nagel T. (1987) What Does it All Mean? A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy. Oxford University Press, NY
Petersen, V. C.: 1999a, Judging with Our Guts – The Importance of An Ineffable Social Grammar, Working Paper 99–12. (The Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark)
Petersen, V. C.: 1999b, Thinking with Our Hands – The Importance of Tacit, Non-algorithmic Knowledge. Working Paper 99–10. (The Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus, Denmark)
Petersen V. C. (2002) Beyond Rules in Business and Society. Edward Elgar, Northampton. p. 309–357
Phillips R. (2003) Stakeholder Legitimacy. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(1):25–41
Phillips R., Freeman R. E., Wicks A. C. (2003) What Stakeholder Theory is Not. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(4):479–502
Rorty R. (1999) Philosophy and Social Hope. Penguin Books, London
Taylor Mark C. (2001). The Moment of Complexity. Emerging Network Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Painter-Morland, M. Redefining Accountability As Relational Responsiveness. J Bus Ethics 66, 89–98 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9046-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9046-0