IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mlucee/200611.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ordo-Responsibility - Conceptual reflections towards a semantic innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Beckmann, Markus
  • Pies, Ingo

Abstract

Based on economic ethics, this paper reflects on and aims to improve the semantics of responsibility. The traditional concept of responsibility is threatened with erosion when responsibility is attributed to an actor who is unable to exercise individual control over the outcome of his actions. In the modern world-society this is increasingly the case. The concept of ordo-responsibility is helpful in identifying a suitable approach for the attribution and acceptance of responsibility. The perspective of economic ethics systematically differentiates between the initial basic game of business and the related meta-games of politics and public discourse. In this way, the focus shifts to the rule-setting processes and rule-finding discourses for which the actors can accept governance responsibility and discourse responsibility, respectively. These two forms of ordo-responsibility demonstrate a characteristic which is extremely important for processes of 'New Governance': they can be attributed to corporative actors, and they can be perceived by them in their own well-reflected interests.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:200611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/170273/1/dp2006-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael C. Jensen, 2010. "Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 22(1), pages 32-42, January.
    2. Anant K. Sundaram & Andrew C. Inkpen, 2004. "The Corporate Objective Revisited," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 350-363, June.
    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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan, 2007. "The international provision of pharmaceuticals: A comparison of two alternative theoretical strategies for global ethics," Discussion Papers 2007-9, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.

    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, 2007. "Responsibility and economics," Discussion Papers 2007-6, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    2. 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.
    3. Nishchapat Nittapaipapon & Thithit Atchattabhan, 2016. "Creating Shared Value: the Fundamental Ontology of Establishing and Movement in Business," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 112-124, May.
    4. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    5. Kopel, Michael & Brand, Björn, 2012. "Socially responsible firms and endogenous choice of strategic incentives," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 982-989.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    9. Pamela Queen, 2015. "Enlightened Shareholder Maximization: Is this Strategy Achievable?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 683-694, March.
    10. Allen Kaufman & Ernie Englander, 2011. "Behavioral Economics, Federalism, and the Triumph of Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 421-438, September.
    11. Midtgård, Kenneth & Selart, Marcus, 2024. "The cognitive perspective in strategic choice," SocArXiv 4xpza, Center for Open Science.
    12. Tomasz Obloj & Metin Sengul, 2020. "What do multiple objectives really mean for performance? Empirical evidence from the French manufacturing sector," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(13), pages 2518-2547, December.
    13. Jukka Mäkinen & Eero Kasanen, 2016. "Boundaries Between Business and Politics: A Study on the Division of Moral Labor," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 134(1), pages 103-116, March.
    14. David Rönnegard & N. Craig Smith, 2024. "A Rawlsian Rule for Corporate Governance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 190(2), pages 295-308, March.
    15. Kevin Levillain & Blanche Segrestin, 2019. "From primacy to purpose commitment: How emerging profit-with-purpose corporations open new corporate governance avenues," Post-Print hal-02290622, HAL.
    16. Maria Goranova & Lori Verstegen Ryan, 2022. "The Corporate Objective Revisited: The Shareholder Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 526-554, March.
    17. Veda Fatmy & John Kihn & Jukka Sihvonen & Sami Vähämaa, 2022. "Does lesbian and gay friendliness pay off? A new look at LGBT policies and firm performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(1), pages 213-242, March.
    18. Sliman S. Alsoboa, 2017. "The Influence of Economic Value Added and Return on Assets on Created Shareholders Value: A Comparative Study in Jordanian Public Industrial Firms," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(4), pages 63-78, April.
    19. Mahoney, Joseph T., 2012. "Towards a Stakeholder Theory of Strategic Management," Working Papers 12-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    20. 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.

    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:200611. 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.