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.
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
Bovens M. (1998), The Quest for Responsibility: Accountability and Citizenship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Brundtland G. (1987), Our Common Future: World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, New York
Dunning J. (ed.) (2003), Making Globalization Good. The Moral Challenges of Global Capitalism. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Easterly W., R. Levine (1997), Africa’s Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethnic Divisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4), 1203–1250
Hofstadter D. (1984), Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. Harmondsworth, UK, Penguin
Keohane R. (2001), Governance in a Partially Globalized World. Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 2000. American Political Science Review 95(1), 1–13
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
Lindblom C. (1965), The Intelligence of Democracy. Decision Making Through Mutual Adjustment. Free Press, New York
Luhmann N. (1969), Legitimation Durch Verfahren. Neuwied-Berlin, Luchterhand
Luhmann N. (1976), The Future Cannot Begin. Temporal Structures in Modern Society. Social Research 43, 130–152
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
MacIntyre A. (1987), Der Verlust der Tugend: Zur moralischen Krise der Gegenwart. English Title: Beyond Virtue. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt
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
Palazzo G., A. G. Scherer (2006), Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework. Journal of Business Ethics 16(66), 71–88
Quinn J. (1992), Intelligent Enterprise. A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Foreword by Tom Peters. Free Press, New York
Simon H. (1978), Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. American Economic Association Review 68(2), 1–16
Simon H. (1983), Reason in Human Affairs. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Sinclair T. (2000), Reinventing Authority: Embedded Knowledge Networks and the New Global Finance. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18, 487–502
Slaughter A.-M. (2004), A New World Order. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford
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
Waldrop M. (1994), Complexity. The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos. Penguin, London
Walzer M. (1983), Spheres of Justice. A Defense of Pluralism and Equality. Basic Books, New York
Warren M. (1996), Deliberative Democracy and Authority. American Political Science Review 90(1), 46–60
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9478-1