Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article offers a critical assessment of an article on “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation” by Guido Palazzo and Andreas Scherer in this journal. We share the concern about the precarious legitimacy of globally active corporations, infringing on the legitimacy of democracy at large. There is no quarrel with Palazzo/Scherer’s diagnosis, which focuses on the consequences of globalization and ensuing challenges for corporate social responsibilities. However, we disagree with the “solutions” offered by them. In a first step we refute the idea of a legitimacy of morals, maintaining that morality is a premodern mode of creating legitimacy. Even worse, moral is becoming a dangerous commodity under conditions of fundamental global disagreements and antagonisms. We secondly refute the concept of the “politicized corporation”, maintaining that Palazzo/Scherer disregard the consequences of functional differentiation of modern societies and, in particular, disregard the wisdom of political restraint and constitutional guarantees for the autonomy of different spheres of society. Finally, we refute a seemingly romantic notion of deliberation, maintaining that deliberation and deliberative democracy is a worthy idea, which, however, has no place in the real world of globalized contexts. On the other hand, we also find enough common ground and common concern with Palazzo/Scherer to validate a fruitful discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benner T., W. Reinicke et al. (2004), Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of Accountability. Government and Opposition 39(4), 191–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens M. (1998), The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundtland G. (1987), Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning J. (ed.) (2003), Making Globalization Good. The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly W., R. Levine (1997), Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4), 1203–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter D. (1984), Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin

    Google Scholar 

  • Keohane R. (2001), Governance in a Partially Globalized World. Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000. American Political Science Review 95(1), 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal D. (2003), Private Morality and Capitalism: Learning from the Past. J. Dunning (ed.), Making Globalization Good. The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom C. (1965), The Intelligence of Democracy. Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N. (1969), Legitimation Durch Verfahren. Neuwied-Berlin, Luchterhand

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann N. (1976), The Future Cannot Begin. Temporal Structures in Modern Society. Social Research 43, 130–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1978, Temporalization of Complexity. Geyer, Felix/Johann v.d. Zouwen, Sociocybernetics, Bd. 2, 95–111. Leiden

  • Luhmann N. (1997), Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, 2 Bände. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre A. (1987), Der Verlust der Tugend: Zur moralischen Krise der Gegenwart. English Title: Beyond Virtue. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, L.: 2005, Uncertainty, Innovation, and Dynamic Sustainable Development. ejournal. http://ejornal.nbil.org 1, Fall 2005(2)

  • Nozick R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York, Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Palazzo G., A. G. Scherer (2006), Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 16(66), 71–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn J. (1992), Intelligent Enterprise. A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Foreword by Tom Peters. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H. (1978), Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. American Economic Association Review 68(2), 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H. (1983), Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair T. (2000), Reinventing Authority: Embedded Knowledge Networks and the New Global Finance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18, 487–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A.-M. (2004), A New World Order. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner G. (2002), Hybrid law: Constitutionalizing Private Governance Networks. Legality and Community. In: R. Kagan, K. Winston (eds) On the Intellectual Legacy of Philip Selznick. Berkeley Public Policy Press, Berkeley, pp 311–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldrop M. (1994), Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walzer M. (1983), Spheres of Justice. A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren M. (1996), Deliberative Democracy and Authority. American Political Science Review 90(1), 46–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M.: 1968, ‹Economy and Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology’, G. Roth and C. Wittich (eds.), Three volumes (Bedminster Press, New York)

  • Willke H. (2007), Smart Governance. Governing the Global Knowledge Economy. Frankfurt und New York, Campus

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helmut Willke.

Additional information

Prof. Dr. Helmut Willke holds a chair for State theory and Global Governance at the Department of Sociology of the University of Bielefeld, Germany. He has published eighteen books, and in 1994 has been award the (German) Leibniz prize. His research areas are systems theory, system governance, global governance and knowledge management.

Prof. Dr. Gerhard Willke is professor of economics at the University of Applied Sciences at Nuertingen, Germany. He has published six books and numerous articles. His research areas are economic theory, theory of capitalism, political economy and employment policy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Willke, H., Willke, G. Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework. J Bus Ethics 81, 27–38 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9478-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9478-1

Keywords

Navigation