Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rethinking the Role of Value Communication in Business Corporations from a Sociological Perspective – Why Organisations Need Value-Based Semantics to Cope with Societal and Organisational Fuzziness

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

Abstract

Why is it so plausible that business organisations in contemporary society use values in their communication? In order to answer this question, a sociological, system theoretical approach is applied which approaches values not pre-empirically as invisible drivers for action but as observable semantics that form organisational behaviour. In terms of empirical material, it will be shown that business organisations resort to a communication of values whenever uncertainty or complexity is very high. Inevitably, value semantics are applied in organisations first when the speakers are uncertain about which stakeholders to whom they have to address (uncertainty) or when different stakeholder groups have to be addressed simultaneously (complexity); second, when the identity of the organisation has to be described; and third, when future strategic options that cannot be expressed by quantitative terms have to be communicated. Values accordingly play a role in organisational practice when certain aspects are indeterminate. Therefore, they are a means for organisations to communicate under fuzzy circumstances. On the basis of these findings, new approaches to value management can now be formulated.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Åkerstrøm Andersen, N.: 2003a, Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann, (Policy Press, Bristol).

    Google Scholar 

  • Åkerstrøm Andersen, N.: 2003b, ‘Polyphonic Organisations’, in T. Hernes and T. Bakken (eds.), Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective (Copenhagen Business School Press, Oslo), pp. 151–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. and Born, A. W.: 2007, ‘Heterophony and the Postponed Organization: Organizing autopoietic systems’, Tamara Journal for Critical Organizational Inquiry 6(2), 176–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S. A.: 2000, Doing critical management research, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D.: 2000, ‘Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research: Challenges, responses, consequences’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(2), 136–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baecker, D.: 2006, ‘The Form of the Firm’, Organization: The Critical Journal on Organization, Theory and Society 13(1), 109–142 (Special Issue on “Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies”).

  • Baecker, D.: 2007, Studien zur nächsten Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayerische HypoVereinsbank AG: 2007, ‘Werte leben – Werte schaffen’, http://www.hypovereinsbank.de/export/sites/aboutus/binaries/downloads/de/HVB_CSR_2007.pdf, München. Accessed 21 July 2008.

  • BMW AG: 2006, ‘Geschäftsbericht 2006’, http://www.bmwgroup.com/d/0_0_www_bmwgroup_com/investor_relations/finanzberichte/geschaeftsberichte/2006/popup/_downloads/gb2006_gesamt.pdf, München. Accessed 26 Sep 2007.

  • Brunsson, N.: 2002, The Organization of Hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations, (Copenhagen Business Press, Oslo).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson, N.: 2006, ‘Administrative reforms as routines’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 22, 243–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calás, M. B.: 1997, Postmodern management theory, (Ashgate, Aldershot).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A.B.: 1999, ‘CSR: Evolution of a definitional construct’, Business & Society 38, pp. 268-295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. et al. (eds.): 2006, The Sage handbook of organization studies, (Sage, London).

  • Collins, J. C. & Porras, J. I.: 1994, Built to last. Successful habits of visionary companies, (Harper Business, New York, NY).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, Ch. (ed.): 1993, ‘The Ethical nexus’, (Ablex Pub. Corp., Norwood, N.J).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, T.: 2005, Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice, (Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, Calif.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Lufthansa AG: 2006, ‘Geschäftsbericht 2006’, http://konzern.lufthansa.com/de/downloads/presse/downloads/publikationen/lh_gb_2006.pdf, Frankfurt. Accessed 26 Sep 26.

  • Drepper, T.: 2005, ‘Organization and Society’, in D. Seidl and K. H. Becker (eds.), Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies (Liber et al., Malmö), pp. 171–190.

  • Drucker, P.: 1989, ‘Ethical Chic’, in A. P. Iannone (ed.), Contemporary moral controversies in business, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York), pp. 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P.: 2001, ‘The Next Society’, The Economist, 3 November.

  • Drucker, P.: 2002, Managing in the Next Society, 1st edition (Truman Talley, New York, NY).

  • Du, S. et al.: 2010, ‘Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication’, International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), pp. 8-19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E.: 1973, On morality and society: Selected writings, (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethics Resource Center: 2003, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).

  • Ethics Resource Center: 2005, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).

  • Ethics Resource Center: 2007, National Business Ethics Survey: How Employees View Ethics in Their Organizations (Ethics Resource Center, Arlington).

  • Frederick, W. C.: 1995, Values, nature, and culture in the American corporation, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1990, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits’, in W. M. Hoffman and J. M. Moore (eds.), Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality, (McGraw-Hill, New York), pp.153–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E.: 2007, Conscience and corporate culture, (Blackwell, Malden, Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, D.: 1998, Discourse and organization, (Sage, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther, G.: 1979, ‘”Life as Poly-Contextuality”‘, in G. Günther (ed.), Beiträge zur Grundlegung einer operationsfähigen Dialektik, (Felix Meiner Verlag, Hamburg), pp. 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habisch, A. et al. (eds.): 2005, Corporate Social Responsibility Across Europe (Springer, Berlin).

  • Hofstede, G.: 2006, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (Sage, Thousand Oaks).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. et al.: 2005, ‘Deriving Value from Corporate Values’, http://www.aspeninstitute.org/atf/cf/%7BDEB6F227-659B-4EC8-8F84-8DF23CA704F5%7D/VALUE%20SURVEY%20FINAL.PDF. Accessed 21 July 2008.

  • Kotler, P. and N. Lee: 2005, Corporate Social Respon- sibility – Doing the Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause (John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey)

  • Kotter, J.P. and Heskett, J. L.: 1992, Corporate culture and performance, (Free Press et al., New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronberger, M. et al.: 2006, ‘Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as discursive practice’, Scandinavian Journal of Management 22, pp. 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, D.R. et al.: 2004, ‘The effect of corporate social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits’, Journal of Marketing 68, pp. 16-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgreen, A. and Swaen, V.: 2010, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’, International Journal of Management Reviews 12(1), pp. 1-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1964, Funktionen und Folgen formaler Organisation 1994, (Duncker and Humblot, Berlin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1977, ‘Differentiation of society’, The Canadian Journal of Sociology 2(1), pp. 29-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1982, The differentiation of society, (Columbia University Press, Columbia).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1990a, ‘Risiko und Gefahr’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Konstruktivistische Perspektiven, (Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen), pp. 131–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1990b, ‘Tautology and Paradox in the Self-Descriptions of Modern Society’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Essays on self-reference, (Columbia University Press, New York, NY), pp. 123–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1990c, ‘Was tut ein Manager in einem sich selbst organisierenden System?’, GDI Impuls 1, 11–16.

  • Luhmann, N.: 1996, Social Systems, (Stanford University Press, Palo Alto).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1997, Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 1999, ‘Complexity, Structural Contingencies and Value Conflicts’, in P. Heelas et al. (eds.), Detraditionalization: critical reflections on authority and identity, (Blackwell, Cambridge, Mass.), pp. 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 2005a, ‘Funktion und Kausalität’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung 1: Aufsätze zur Theorie sozialer Systeme, (VS Verlag, Wiesbaden), pp. 11–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 2005b, ‘Funktionale Methode und Systemtheorie’, in N. Luhmann (ed.), Soziologische Aufklärung 1: Aufsätze zur Theorie sozialer Systeme, (VS Verlag, Wiesbaden), pp. 31–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N.: 2005c, ‘The Concept of Autopoiesis’, in D. Seidl and K.H. Becker (eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies, (Liber et al., Malmö), pp. 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassehi, A.: 2003, Geschlossenheit und Offenheit: Studien zur Theorie der modernen Gesellschaft (Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassehi, A.: 2005, ‘Organizations as Decision Machines: Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems’, in C. Jones and R. Munro (eds.), Contemporary Organization Theory, (Blackwell, Oxford), pp. 178-191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassehi, A. and Saake, I.: 2002, ‘Kontingenz: Methodisch verhindert oder beobachtet. Ein Beitrag zur Methodologie der qualitativen Sozialforschung’, Zeitschrift für Soziologie 31(1), pp. 66-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.: 1960, Structures and Process in Modern Societies, (Free Press, Gencoe).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, T. J. and Waterman, R. H.: 2006, In search of excellence: Lessons from America’s best-run companies,, (Harper Collins, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, E. H.: 1991, Organizational culture and leadership, (Jossey-Bass. San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Pollach, I.: 2005, ‘The perils and opportunities of communicating corporate ethics’, Journal of Marketing Management 21, pp. 267-290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeger, M. W.: 1997, Ethics and organizational communication, (Hampton Press, Cresskill, N.J.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D.: 2003a, ‘Metaphorical Self-Description of Organizations’, in A. Müller and A. Kieser (eds.), Communication in Organizations: Structures and Practices (Lang, Frankfurt am Main).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D.: 2003b, ‘Organisational identity in Luhmann’s theory of social systems’, in T. Hernes and T. Bakken (eds.), Autopoietic Organization Theory: Drawing on Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Perspective (Copenhagen Business School Press, Oslo), pp.123–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seidl, D. and K.H. Becker (eds.): 2005, Niklas Luhmann and organization studies, (Liber et al., Malmö).

    Google Scholar 

  • Smircich, L.: 1983, ‘Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3), pp. 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, L. and J. Coughlan: 2008, `Do Different Industries Report Corporate Social Responsibility Differently? An Investigation Though the Lens of Stakeholder Theory', Journal of Marketing Communications 14(2), 113–124

    Google Scholar 

  • van Liedekerke, L. and Dubbink, W.: 2008, ‘Twenty Years of European Business Ethics - Past Developments and Future Concerns’, Journal of Business Ethics 82 (2), pp. 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Groddeck, V.: 2008, Organisation und Werte. Formen, Funktionen, Folgen. Doctoral Dissertation. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich.

  • Wanderley, L.S.O. et al.: 2008, ‘CSR information disclosure on the web: a context-based approach analyzing the influence of country of origin and industry sector’, Journal of Business Ethics 82, pp. 369-378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1976, ‘Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21 (1), pp. 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1979, The social psychology of organizing, (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E.: 1995, Sensemaking in organizations, (Sage, Thousand Oaks).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wieland, J. (ed.): 2004, Handbuch Wertemanagement: Erfolgsstrategien einer modernen Corporate Governance, (Murmann, Hamburg).

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K.: 2005, Case study research: design and methods, (Sage, Thousand Oaks Calif.).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU), Munich, Germany

    Victoria von Groddeck

Authors
  1. Victoria von Groddeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Victoria von Groddeck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

von Groddeck, V. Rethinking the Role of Value Communication in Business Corporations from a Sociological Perspective – Why Organisations Need Value-Based Semantics to Cope with Societal and Organisational Fuzziness. J Bus Ethics 100, 69–84 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0769-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0769-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation