Abstract
The problem of the unsustainability of our world has a philosophical reason. This reason, this origin, is an anthropological philosophy, a reductionism. Since the Modern Age the main social organization models have been based on specific anthropological views and each of them has led to social distortions.
The anthropological vision that today leads to the distortion of unsustainability is that of homo economicus. This “homo” has three fundamental characteristics: to be a perfect and complete individual; to be rational and self-centric being; to have in business his natural habitat.
However, the human being is not just an economic being, but something much more complex. It is a being-with (the person does not have relationships, but is related), a being-for (the person is not only driven by needs, but also attracted by values, he has an end, a purpose) and a being-in (the person lives in a context, a habitat, an environment that he is called to take care of).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
To accomplish the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, we must invest an amount ranging from 3.3 to 4.5 trillion dollars a year. See: https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/financing.
An outstanding example is the SDG Compass, developed by the UN Global Compact, whose aim is to “guide companies in the process of aligning their respective strategies with the SDGs and to support them in measuring and managing their respective contributions to the achievement of the same”. Cit. SDG Compass. A guide for private sector action on the SDGs, p. 3. https://www.globalcompactnetwork.org/files/newsletter/SDG_Compass_Guide_2020_def.pdf.
T. Hobbes, De Cive, 1642.
J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government, 1690; An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690.
K. Marx, Das Kapital, 1867.
J. A. de Gobineau, Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines, 1859; O. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1922 (first Italian edition, Il tramonto dell’Occidente, 1954); A. Hitler, Mein Kampf, 1926.
The first thinker to have introduced the concept of homo oeconomicus was J. S. Mill, in Principles of Political Economy (1848), but the utilitarian foundation of human action was previously elaborated by J. Bentham, in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, published as early as 1789. Classical economic theory continued along this path with authors such as: A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (1890); V. Pareto, Handbook of Political Economics (1906);
Willing to identify a clear codification of this model, which is obviously very broad, extensive, and detailed, we could cite the objectivism of Ayn Rand O’Connor (1905– 1982) or the libertarianism of Robert Edwin Nozick (1938– 2002). Referring to these two authors is doubly interesting because, despite mutual criticism, they essentially have the same individualist basis (which fueled the positions of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek).
Honorable mentions about that are: “H.A. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man; social and rational”, which introduced the concept of bounded rationality; “R. Nelson and S. Winter, (1985) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change”, which introduced the conception of firm is a collector of heterogeneous organisations guided by routines, the evolutionary economic equivalent of genes.
See G. Semerano, Greek Language Dictionary in The origins of the European culture. Vol. II, Etymological dictionaries, Semitic bases of Indo-European languages, Giovanni Semerano, Firenze 2002, ed. Olschki, p. 241.
M. Pohlenz, La Stoa, Milano 2005, ed. Bompiani, pp. 408 and following.
See Aristotle, Politics, Book III, 6, 1278b, 19-21.
Tertullian, Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas), 12, 7; 18,2.
J. Ratzinger, Dogma and Preaching, Brescia 1973, ed. Queriniana, p. 174.
Jonas argued that in addition to considering the universality of our actions, we must also consider the consequences of our actions for future generations and the biosphere as a whole. The Principle of Responsibility extends Kant’s focus on individual actions to encompass a broader scope of consequences, especially those related to ecological sustainability and the well-being of future generations. It urges individuals to act not only in ways that respect the autonomy and dignity of others but also in ways that ensure the preservation and flourishing of life on Earth. Jonas’s update to the Kantian Imperative reflects the growing recognition of the interconnectedness of human actions and their impact on the environment and future generations. It highlights the need for ethical frameworks that address not only immediate moral considerations but also long-term sustainability and the protection of the planet’s ecosystems. Hans Jonas, On Faith, Reason and Responsibility: Six Essays, San Francisco 1978, ed. Harper and Row.
Follett, M. P.: 1940, Dynamic Administration. The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick (Harper & Brothers, New York, London).
Barnard, I. C.: 1968/1938, The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).
Maslow, A. H.: 1970/1954, Motivation and Personality (Harper & Row, New York).
Peters, T. J. and R. H. Waterman: 1982, In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best Run Companies (Harper & Row, London).
Deal, T. E. and A. A. Kennedy: 1982, Corporate Cultures (Addison-Wesley, Reading).
Goffee, R. and G. Jones: 1998, The Character of a Corporation: How Your Company’s Culture Can Make or Break Your Business (Harper Business, New York).
Melé, Domènec (2003). The Challenge of Humanistic Management. Journal of Business Ethics 44 (1):77– 88, p. 82.
Ibid.
Pirson, Michael (2017). Humanistic Management: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being. Cambridge University Press.
Ibid. pp. 58– 75.
Frankl V.E. (1990a), The Unheard Cry for Meaning: Psychotherapy and Humanism, Rome, Città Nuova Editrice, 2nd ed, p. 30.
Frankl V.E. (1998b), Man’s Search for Meaning. An Introduction to Logotherapy, Rome, Città Nuova Editrice, 2ª ed., p. 58.
Ibid. p. 53.
Domenec Melé, 2016. Understanding Humanistic Management, Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 33-55, September.
Ibid., p. 44.
Mader, C. (2013). Humanistic Management and Sustainable Transformation with Regional Scope on Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In: Khan, S., Amann, W. (eds) World Humanism. Humanism in Business Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137378491_6, p. 81.
Pope Francis, Laudato Si’, Chapter 3, par. III: “The Crisis and Effects of Modern Anthropocentrism”, 115 and following.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Budini, S. The Humanistic Foundation to Sustainability. Humanist Manag J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-024-00172-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-024-00172-0