Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:38:00.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2015

Dirk Ulrich Gilbert  and
Andreas Rasche
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Based on theoretical insights of discourse ethics as developed by Jürgen Habermas, we delineate a proposal to further develop the institutionalization of social accounting in multinational corporations (MNCs) by means of “Social Accountability 8000” (SA 8000). First, we discuss the cornerstones of Habermas's discourse ethics and elucidate how and why this concept can provide a theoretical justification of the moral point of view in MNCs. Second, the basic conception, main purpose, and implementation procedure of SA 8000 are presented. Third, we critically examine SA 8000 from a Habermasian perspective, and discuss advantages and drawbacks of the initiative. Fourth, to address the drawbacks, we introduce a “discourse-ethically” extended version of SA 8000. We show that this approach is theoretically well-founded and able to overcome some of the current deficits of the certification initiative. We demonstrate that the extended version of SA 8000 can be successfully applied on a cross-cultural basis, and that our findings have significant implications for other international ethics initiatives.

Type
Special Section: The Ethics of Organizational Ethics Initiatives
Information
Business Ethics Quarterly , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 187 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Business Ethics Quarterly 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrahamson, E. 1996. Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21: 254–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adorno, T., & Horkheimer, M. 1997. Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53: 1125–49.Google Scholar
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. 2003. Introduction. In Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (Eds.), Studying management critically: 1–22. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Belal, A. R. 2002. Stakeholder accountability or stakeholder management: A review of UK firms' social and ethical accounting, auditing, and reporting (SEAAR) practices. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9: 8–25.Google Scholar
Brown, M. T. 2005. Corporate integrity: Rethinking organizational ethics and leadership. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burrell, G. 1994. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 4: The contribution of Jürgen Habermas. Organization Studies, 15: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., Janson, M., & Brown, A. 2002. The rationality framework for a critical study of information systems. Journal of Information Technology, 17: 215–27.Google Scholar
Cecez-Kecmanovic, D., & Webb, C. 2000. Towards a communicative model of collaborative web-mediated learning. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 16: 73–85.Google Scholar
Chua, W. F., & Degeling, P. 1993. Interrogating an accounting-based intervention on three axes: Instrumental, moral and aesthetic. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18: 291–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, A., & Matten, D. 2004. Business ethics: A European perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deming, W. E. 2000. Out of the crisis. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, J. 1992. Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority.” In Cornell, D., Rosenfeld, M., & Carlson, D. G. (Eds.), Deconstruction and the possibility of justice: 3–67. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T. 2003. Editor's comments: Taking ethics seriously—A mission now more possible. Academy of Management Review, 28: 363–66.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1994. Toward a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19: 252–84.Google Scholar
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
Finke, S. R. S. 2000. Habermas and Kant: Judgment and communicative experience. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 26(6): 21–45.Google Scholar
Finlayson, J. G. 2000. Modernity and morality in Habermas's discourse ethics. Inquiry, 43: 319–40.Google Scholar
Finlayson, J. G. 2005. Habermas: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
Froomkin, A. M. 2003. Habermas@discourse.net: Towards a critical theory of cyberspace, Harvard Law Review, 116: 751–873.Google Scholar
Fuller, B. 2005. Trading zones: Cooperating for water resource and ecosystem management when stakeholders have apparently irreconcilable differences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Massachussets Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Galison, P. L. 1997. Image and logic: A material critique of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, P. L. 1999. Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In Biagioli, W. (Ed.), The science studies reader: 137–60. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. U. 2003. Institutionalisierung von Unternehmensethik in internationalen Unternehmen. Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, 73 : 25–48.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., Behnam, M., & Rasche, A. 2003. Assessing the impact of social standards on compliance and integrity-management in organizations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle.Google Scholar
Göbbels, M., & Jonker, J. 2003. AA1000 and SA8000 compared: A systematic comparison of contemporary accountability standards. Managerial Auditing Journal, 18: 54–58.Google Scholar
Goodell, E. 1999. Standards of corporate social responsibility. San Francisco: Social Venture Network.Google Scholar
Gray, R. 2001. Thirty years of social accounting, reporting and auditing: What (if anything) have we learnt? Business Ethics: A European Review, 10: 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, R. 2002. The social accounting project and accounting organizations and society privileging engagement, imaginings, new accountings and pragmatism over critique? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27: 687–708.Google Scholar
Gray, R., Owen, D. L., & Adams, C. 1996. Accounting and accountability: Changes and challenges in corporate social and environmental reporting. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1990. Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1991. A reply. In Honneth, A. & Joas, H. (Eds.), Communicative action. Essays on Jürgen Habermas's theory of communicative action: 214–64. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1992. Postmetaphysical thinking: Philosophical essays. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1993. Justification and application: Remarks on discourse ethics. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996. Between facts and norms. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1998. On the pragmatics of communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1999. The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2001. From Kant's ‘ideas’ of pure reason to the ‘idealizing’ presuppositions of communicative action: Reflections on the detranscendentalized ‘use of reason.’ In Regh, W. & Bohman, J. (Eds.), Pluralism and the pragmatic turn: 11–39. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2003. Truth and justification. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. 1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 479–85.Google Scholar
Hendry, J. 1999. Universalizability and reciprocity in international business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 405–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoy, D. C., & McCarthy, T. 1994. Critical theory. Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Institute for Social and Ethical Account Ability (ISEA). 1999. AA 1000 framework: Standards, guidelines and professional qualifications. London: ISEA.Google Scholar
Jiang, R., & Bansal, P. 2003. Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies, 40: 1047–67.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1993. Critique of practical reason. Guernsey: The Guernsey Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 2004. Fundamental critique of the metaphysic of morals. Whitefish MT: Kessinger.Google Scholar
Kell, G., & Levin, D. 2003. The global compact network: An historic experiment in learning and action. Business and Society Review, 108: 151–81.Google Scholar
KPMG, 2002. International survey of corporate sustainability reporting 2002. Maasland: Druckgroep Maasland.Google Scholar
Laughlin, R. C. 1987. Accounting systems in organizational contexts: A case for critical theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12: 479–502.Google Scholar
Lehman, G. 1999. Disclosing new worlds: A role for social and environmental accounting and auditing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 24: 217–41.Google Scholar
Leipziger, D. 2001. SA 8000: The definitive guide to the new social standard. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Leipziger, D. 2003. The corporate responsibility code book. Sheffield: Greenleaf.Google Scholar
Levy, D. L., Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. 2003. Critical approaches to strategic management. In Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (Eds.), Studying management critically: 92–110. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lozano, J. F. 2001. Proposal for a model for the elaboration of ethical codes based on discourse ethics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 10: 157–62.Google Scholar
Mamic, I. 2005. Managing global supply chain: The sports footwear, apparel and retail sectors. Journal of Business Ethics, 59: 81–100.Google Scholar
Mathews, M. R. 1997. Twenty-five years of social and environmental accounting research: Is there a silver jubilee to celebrate? Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 10: 481–531.Google Scholar
McCarthy, T. 1991. Ideals and illusions: On reconstruction and deconstruction in contemporary critical theory. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McIntosh, M., Thomas, R., Leipziger, D., & Coleman, G. 2003. Living corporate citizenship: Strategic routes to socially responsible business. London: FT Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. 1997. Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22: 853–86.Google Scholar
O'Dwyer, B. 2001. The legitimacy of accountant's participation in social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting. Business Ethics: A European Review, 9: 86–98.Google Scholar
Parker, M. 2003. Business, ethics and business ethics: Critical theory and negative dialectics. In Alvesson, M. & Willmott, H. (Eds.), Studying management critically : 197–219. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. 2003. Stakeholder theory and organizational ethics. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
Phillips, R., Freeman, E. R., & Wicks, A. C. 2003. What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13: 479–502.Google Scholar
Power, M., & Laughlin, R. 1996. Habermas, law and accounting. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 21: 441–65.Google Scholar
Ramanathan, K. V. 1976. Toward a theory of corporate social accounting. The Accounting Review, 51: 516–28.Google Scholar
Rasche, A., & Esser, D. 2006. From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability: Applying Habermasian discourse ethics to accountability research. Journal of Business Ethics, 65: 251–67.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reed, D. 1999. Stakeholder management theory: A critical theory perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 9: 453–83.Google Scholar
Schnebel, E. 2000. Values in decision-making processes: Systematic structures of J. Habermas and N. Luhmann for the appreciation of responsibility in leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 27: 79–89.Google Scholar
Schweiker, W. 1993. Accounting for ourselves: Accounting practice and the discourse of ethics. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18: 231–51.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1993. Does business ethics make economic sense? Business Ethics Quarterly, 3: 45–54.Google Scholar
Shearer, T. 2002. Ethics and accountability: From the for-itself to the for-the-other. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 27: 541–73.Google Scholar
Social Accountability International (SAI). 2005. About social accountability 8000. http://www.sa-intl.org/AboutSAI/AboutSAI.htm, Accessed December 20, 2005.Google Scholar
Spaemann, R. 2000. Happiness and benevolence. Notre Dame IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G., Gibson, D. G., & Toffler, B. L. 1999. Managing ethics and legal compliance: What works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41: 131–51.Google Scholar
Tulder, R. v., & Kolk, A. 2001. Multinationality and corporate ethics: Codes of conduct in the sporting goods industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32: 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, P. 1996. Business acivity and the triple “e”: Towards an ethically-based conception of socio-economic rationality: From social contract theory to discourse ethics as the normative foundation of political economy. In Gasparski, W. W. & Ryan, L. V. (Eds.), Praxiology: The international annual of practical philosophy & methodology: 21–49. New York: Transaction.Google Scholar
Ulrich, P. 1998. Integrative economic ethics: Towards a conception of socio-economic ra-tionality. Working Paper No. 82, University of St. Gallen. St. Gallen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Unerman, J., & Bennett, M. 2004. Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: Towards greater corporate social accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony? Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29: 685–708.Google Scholar
Watson, S., & Weaver, G. 2003. How internationalization affects corporate ethics: Formal structures and informal management behavior. Journal of International Management, 9: 75–93.Google Scholar
White, S. K. 1980. Reason and authority in Habermas: A critique of critics. The American Political Science Review, 74: 1007–17.Google Scholar
Zadek, S., Pruzan, P. M., & Evans, R. 1997. Building corporate accountability: The emerging practice of social & ethical accounting, auditing & reporting. London: Earthscan Publication.Google Scholar