Democracy and Private Discretion in Business

Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (1):37-66 (2005)
Abstract
Some critics raise moral objections against corporate social responsibility on account of its supposedly undemocratic nature. Theyargue that it is hard to reconcile democracy with the private discretion that always accompanies the discharge of responsibilities that are not judicially enforceable. There are two ways of constructing this argument: the “perfect-market argument” and the “social-power argument.” This paper demonstrates that the perfect-market argument is untenable and that the social-power argument is sometimes valid. It also asserts that the proponents of the perfect-market argument are mistaken in their assumption that perfect markets are conducive to democracy. There are strong reasons to hold that perfect markets are undesirable from a democratic point of view. A proper conceptualization and differentiation of the relation between “the private and the public” can make this clear. The proponents of the social-power argument sometimes maintain that the democratic deficit can be compensated for by consulting the stakeholdersaffected. Against this, I will argue that the social power argument has nothing to offer affected parties. Still, it will be shown that moderntheory on corporate social responsibility is not well accommodated to the democratic deficit as revealed by the social power argument
Keywords Applied Philosophy  Business and Professional Ethics  Social Science
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 1052-150X  
DOI 10.5840/beq20051512
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,836
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
What Stakeholder Theory is Not.Andrew C. Wicks - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):479-502.
Stakeholder Theory: A Libertarian Defense.R. Edward Freeman & Robert A. Phillips - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (3):331-350.
The Perils of Multinationals' Largess.Thomas Donaldson - 1994 - Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (3):367-371.
Appendix.[author unknown] - 2002 - Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):257-264.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Grounding Positive Duties in Commercial Life.Wim Dubbink & Luc Van Liedekerke - 2014 - Journal of Business Ethics 120 (4):527-539.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Governing the Global Corporation.Subhabrata Bobby Banerjee - 2010 - Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (2):265-274.
Communication as Commodity: Should the Media Be on the Market?Rutger Claassen - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):65-79.
Corporations, Profit Maximization and the Personal Sphere.Waheed Hussain - 2012 - Economics and Philosophy 28 (3):311-331.
Is Market Society Intrinsically Repugnant?Jason Brennan - 2013 - Journal of Business Ethics 112 (2):271-281.
The Effects of “Going Private” on Corporate Financial and Corporate Social Performance.Marguerite Schneider & Alix Valenti - 2008 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 19:236-245.
Phenomenal Concepts are Consistent with Wittgenstein’s Private Language Argument.Francois-Igor Pris - 2014 - NB: Philosophical Investigations (Russian E-Journal) 7:64-98.
Rights as Democracy.Richard Bellamy - 2012 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15 (4):449-471.
Added to PP index
2011-01-09

Total downloads
22 ( #259,311 of 2,231,661 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #446,025 of 2,231,661 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature