The HIV/AIDS crisis and corporate moral responsibility in the light of the Levinasian notions of proximity and the third
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Business Ethics 16 (3):278–285 (2007)
This paper focuses on the set of problems regarding the HIV/AIDS crisis in the specific domain of corporate moral responsibility within a context of the Levinasian notion of proximity (infinite responsibility) and the Third. Against a totalitarian, homogeneous society, Levinas opens the way to a social pluralism, which has its sources in the disquiet provoked by the strangeness of the Other's face. Corporate responsibility, understood from this point of view, would not reduce institutional relations to an anonymous world of neutrality. Corporate responsibility is unconditional in the sense that to be responsible is not a question of choice, but one of deep liberty, the liberty of taking the burden of the infinite responsibility for the Other customers, employees, the public at large and those who suffer in the world. This paper argues that it would then also mean that society (individuals, NGOs and governments) in accordance with the spirit of the Levinasian philosophy of infinite responsibility could exert pressure on corporations, such as pharmaceutical companies. Owing to their power, they could change their present responsibility policies to a more affirmative and engaged responsibility with regard to those who are ill and who suffer death or debilitation from HIV/AIDS and other prevalent diseases in the poorest parts of the world today.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
Klaus M. Leisinger (2005). The Corporate Social Responsibility of The Pharmaceutical Industry. Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (4):577-594.
Emmanuel Levinas (1979). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Distribution for the U.S. And Canada, Kluwer Boston.
Michael Purcell (1996). The Ethical Significance of Illeity (Emmanuel Lévinas). Heythrop Journal 37 (2):125–138.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Wim Dubbink & Jeffery Smith (2011). A Political Account of Corporate Moral Responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):223-246.
Stephen Wilmot (2001). Corporate Moral Responsibility: What Can We Infer From Our Understanding of Organisations? [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 30 (2):161 - 169.
Jeffery Smith (2011). A Political Account of Corporate Moral Responsibility. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):223 - 246.
Samuel Mansell (2008). Proximity and Rationalisation: The Limits of a Levinasian Ethics in the Context of Corporate Governance and Regulation. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 83 (3):565 - 577.
William Flanagan & Gail Whiteman (2005). “AIDS is Not a Business”. International Corporate Responsibility Series 2:375-391.
Jacob Dahi Rendtorff (2007). The Idea of Corporate Social Responsibility. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 1:111-117.
William Flanagan & Gail Whiteman (2007). “AIDS is Not a Business”: A Study in Global Corporate Responsibility – Securing Access to Low-Cost HIV Medications. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (1):65 - 75.
Jacquie L'Etang (1994). Public Relations and Corporate Social Responsibility: Some Issues Arising. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 13 (2):111 - 123.
David Bevan & Hervé Corvellec (2007). The Impossibility of Corporate Ethics: For a Levinasian Approach to Managerial Ethics. Business Ethics 16 (3):208–219.
Conceição Soares (2008). Corporate Legal Responsibility: A Levinasian Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 81 (3):545 - 553.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #178,728 of 1,088,384 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,601 of 1,088,384 )
How can I increase my downloads?