Abstract
In this article, I explore how the ideas of French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas offer insights into a debate often held today in the field of corporate governance, concerning the relative merits of statutory and voluntary approaches to the regulation of business. The philosophical position outlined by Levinas questions whether any rule-based systematisation of ethical responsibility, either statutory or voluntary, can ever equate to a genuine responsibility for the other person. I reflect on how various authors have adapted Levinas’s philosophy to form a critique of bureaucracy and rule following in business, and the lack of ethical authenticity in corporate codes. However, this article also considers the question of whether a theoretical separation can be made between an ethical responsibility based on sensibility (as is suggested by Levinas) and a rational conceptualisation of how one is required to act. Considering the difficulty of disentangling these notions of ethics, I return to the problem of corporate governance and suggest an approach to stakeholder conflict based on mediation and dialogue, which rules out neither principles of conduct nor an openness of responsibility to the Other.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambrüster, T.: 2003, Political Liberalism, Management, and Organisation Theory, Paper prepared for the 19th EGOS Colloquium, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Arendt, H.: 1963/1994, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (Penguin, London)
Aristotle: 1980, The Nichomachean Ethics (Oxford World’s Classics)
Arya B., Salk J. 2006 Cross-Sector Alliance Learning and Effectiveness of Voluntary Codes of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly 16(2): 211–234
Bauman, Z.: 1989, Modernity and the Holocaust (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Du Gay, P.: 2003. Bureaucracy & Liberty: State, Authority and Freedom, Paper prepared for the 19th EGOS Colloquium Copenhagen Business School, Denmark
Hare, R.: 1963/1998, ‹A Moral Argument’, In J. Rachels (ed.), Ethical Theory 1: The Question of Objectivity (Oxford)
Hoffman, A.: 1997, From Heresy to Dogma (Stanford University Press, Stanford)
Jones C. 2003 As if Business Ethics Were Possible, Within Such Limits’ …. Organization 10(2):223–248
Jones, C., M. Parker and R. ten Bos: 2005, For Business Ethics (Routledge, London)
Kant, I.: 1785/1997, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Kant, I.: 1788/1997, Critique of Practical Reason (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Kant, I.: 1797/1996, The Metaphysics of Morals (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Lampe M. 2001 Mediation as an Ethical Adjunct of Stakeholder Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 31: 165–173
Letiche, H.: 1998, ‹Business Ethics: (In-)Justice and (Anti-)Law – Reflections on Derrida, Bauman and Lipovetsky’, in M. Parker (ed.), Ethics & Organisation (Sage, London), pp. 122–149
Levinas, E.: 1961/1969, Totality and Infinity (Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh)
Levinas, E.: 1974/1998, Otherwise than Being (Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh)
Mitchell, A. and P. Sikka: 2005, Taming the Corporations (Association for Accountancy & Business Affairs, Basildon)
Paine L. 1994 Managing for Organizational Integrity. Harvard Business Review 72(2):106–117
Parker, M.: 2002, Against Management: Organisation in the Age of Managerialism (Polity Press, Cambridge)
Peperzak A. 1997 Beyond the Philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, Illinois
Pfeffer, J.: 1994, Competitive Advantage Through People (Harvard Business School Press, Harvard)
Quinn J. 1996 The Role of ‹Good Conversation’ in Strategic Control. Journal of Management Studies 33(3):381–394
Roberts, J.: 2003, ‹The Manufacture of Corporate Social Responsibility: Constructing Corporate Sensibility’, Organization 10(3), 249–265
Sikka, P.: 2002, ‹Wall Street Rues Accounting Scandals’, Lateline. Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s595990.htm
Ten Bos R., Willmott H. 2001 Towards a Post-Dualistic Business Ethics: Interweaving Reason and Emotion in Working Life. Journal of Management Studies 38(6) 769–793
Weaver G., Treviño L. 1999 Compliance and Values Oriented Ethics Programs: Influence on Employees’ Attitudes and Behaviour. Business Ethics Quarterly 9(2):315–335
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mansell, S. Proximity and Rationalisation: The Limits of a Levinasian Ethics in the Context of Corporate Governance and Regulation. J Bus Ethics 83, 565–577 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9639-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9639-2