IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mlucee/200610.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ordnungsverantwortung - Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zugunsten einer semantischen Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Beckmann, Markus
  • Pies, Ingo

Abstract

Dieser Aufsatz formuliert einen anreizethischen Beitrag zur Aufklärung der Verantwortungssemantik: Das traditionelle Verantwortungskonzept droht zu erodieren, wo Verantwortung einem Akteur zugeschrieben wird, der über die Folgen seines Handelns keine Ergebniskontrolle ausüben kann. In der modernen (Welt-)Gesellschaft entspricht dies immer mehr dem Normalfall. Das Konzept der Ordnungsverantwortung hilft hier, einen geeigneten Ansatzpunkt für die Zuschreibung bzw. Übernahme von Verantwortung zu identifizieren. Einer anreizethischen Systematisierung folgend, werden neben den Spielzügen im Basisspiel die zugehörigen Meta-Spiele ins Blickfeld gerückt. Auf diese Weise wird die Perspektive auf Regelsetzungsprozesse und Regelfindungsdiskurse fokussiert, für die Akteure Steuerungsverantwortung bzw. Aufklärungsverantwortung übernehmen können. Diese beiden Formen der Ordnungsverantwortung weisen die - für New-Governance-Prozesse höchst wichtige - Eigenschaft auf, auch korporativen Akteuren zugeschrieben und von ihnen inihrem eigenen wohlverstandenen Interesse wahrgenommen werden zu können.

Suggested Citation

  • Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2006. "Ordnungsverantwortung - Konzeptionelle Überlegungen zugunsten einer semantischen Innovation," Discussion Papers 2006-10, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:200610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/170272/1/dp2006-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    2. Pies, Ingo & Brinkmann, Johanna, 2005. "Corporate Citizenship: Raison d'être korporativer Akteure aus Sicht der ökonomischen Ethik," Discussion Papers 2005-1, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    3. Pies, Ingo, 2006. "Methodologischer Hobbesianismus und das Theorieprogramm einer interessenbasierten Moralbegründung," Discussion Papers 2006-8, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    4. Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2006. "Freiheit durch Bindung - Zur ökonomischen Logik von Verhaltenskodizes," Discussion Papers 2006-9, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    5. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”: A Reply," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 370-371, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2006. "Ordo-Responsibility - Conceptual reflections towards a semantic innovation," Discussion Papers 2006-11, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    2. Daniel G. Arce, 2007. "Is Agency Theory Self‐Activating?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(4), pages 708-720, October.
    3. Andrew C. Inkpen & Anant K. Sundaram, 2022. "The Endurance of Shareholder Value Maximization as the Preferred Corporate Objective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 555-568, March.
    4. Lee Siew Tee & Ismail Nizam, 2020. "The Influence of Corporate Governance on Financial Performance Mediated by Gender Diversity," Journal of Asian Business Strategy, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(1), pages 61-79, January.
    5. Pies, Ingo & Beckmann, Markus & Hielscher, Stefan, 2012. "The political role of the business firm: An ordonomic concept of corporate citizenship developed in comparison with the Aristoleian idea of individual citizenship," Discussion Papers 2012-1, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    6. Witold J. Henisz & Sinziana Dorobantu & Lite J. Nartey, 2014. "Spinning gold: The financial returns to stakeholder engagement," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1727-1748, December.
    7. Jan Kultys, 2016. "Controversies About Agency Theory As Theoretical Basis For Corporate Governance," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 7(4), pages 613-634, December.
    8. Midtgård, Kenneth & Selart, Marcus, 2024. "The cognitive perspective in strategic choice," SocArXiv 4xpza, Center for Open Science.
    9. Donal Crilly, 2013. "Recasting Enterprise Strategy: Towards Stakeholder Research That Matters to General Managers," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1427-1447, December.
    10. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    11. Suchanek Andreas, 2012. "Unternehmensverantwortung als Vermeidung relevanter Inkonsistenzen / Corporate Responsibility: The Avoidance of Relevant Inconsistencies," ORDO. Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, De Gruyter, vol. 63(1), pages 241-260, January.
    12. Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2007. "Responsibility and economics," Discussion Papers 2007-6, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    13. Daryl Koehn & Maria Goranova, 2018. "Do Investors See Value in Ethically Sound CEO Apologies? Investigating Stock Market Reaction to CEO Apologies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(2), pages 311-322, October.
    14. John Buchanan & Dominic H. Chai & Simon Deakin, 2018. "Unexpected Corporate Outcomes from Hedge Find Activism in Japan," Working Papers wp494, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    15. Christopher, Joe, 2010. "Corporate governance—A multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider influencing forces impacting on organizations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 683-695.
    16. Liliana Hawrysz & Jolanta Maj, 2017. "Identification of Stakeholders of Public Interest Organisations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-13, September.
    17. Kull, Alexander J. & Mena, Jeannette A. & Korschun, Daniel, 2016. "A resource-based view of stakeholder marketing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 5553-5560.
    18. Taekjin Shin & Jihae You, 2017. "Pay for Talk: How the Use of Shareholder-Value Language Affects CEO Compensation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 88-117, January.
    19. R. Edward Freeman & Andrew C. Wicks & Bidhan Parmar, 2004. "Stakeholder Theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 364-369, June.
    20. Claus Dierksmeier, 2016. "What is ‘Humanistic’ About Humanistic Management?," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 9-32, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:200610. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wwhalde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.