A Holistic Corporate Responsibility Model: Integrating Values, Discourses and Actions Author(s): Tarja Ketola Source: Journal of Business

Ethics, Vol. 80, No. 3 (Jul., 2008), pp. 419-435 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25482156 . Accessed: 12/06/2013 12:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(2008) 80:419-435 Journal of Business Ethics DOI 10.1007/sl0551-007-9428-y

? Springer

2007

A Holistic
Model:

Corporate Responsibility
Values, Discourses Tarja Ketola

Integrating and Actions

ABSTP.ACT.
sion has it from their

The
own

corporate responsibiUty
rather areas but fragmented of expertise, room for which broader

(CR) discus
tackle guarantees syntheses. exercise:

tested strategic

in

companies and operational

and

executed

through

corporate

so far been

as academics

management.

analyses, in-depth is a synthetic, This research

leaves

KEY it

WORDS: ethics,

actions, values

corporate

responsibiHty,

dis

interdisciplinary

courses,

integrates
perspectives CR-model their interest

phdosophical,
of corporate for the benefit CR and

psychological
responsibiUty of academics, into

and managerial
amore companies three holistic and areas: In all corporate this multidis

Introduction Motives This article develops further the results of another article pubHshed in this journal (Ketola, 2006a). That article defence discourses. corporate investigated article examines these
corporate

groups. social there

usuaUy economic be a match The

comprises

environmental, these values, areas

responsibilities. between aim of

should and

discourses

actions.

ciplinary research is to buUd a CR-model (1) utiUtarian/egoistic, duty/rights/justice

ethical corporate values with defences (3) responsible actions. (2) increased psychological achieve nomic in corporate environmental, The resulting

by integrating and virtue

consciousness in order and eco can be of to

discourses, social CR-model

This
context:

corporate
values

discourses
and actions.

in

in-between

corporate

This

paper

was

presented

at

the European

Academy

of Man

Munich, 4?1 May 2005 agement (EURAM) Conference in to I would thank professor Stephan like (Ketola, 2005a). Laske for his insightful comments at the conference,which
enabled me to revise reviewers the article. the paper. Many for thanks their further also for advice the on anonymous finalizing Tarja Ketola of this journal

(CR) issues have become Corporate responsibUity so critical to the weU being of humans and nature that they invite a variety of academics and disciplines to submit them under closer scrutiny. The CR discussion
academic

has so far been

tackles it from

rather fragmented
their own area of

as every
expertise,

which

is Associate Professor of Sustainable Development at the and Adjunct Vaasa, Finland, University of Professor of at the Turku Environmental School Management of Eco at Finland. took her Ph.D. She nomics, Imperial College, as a Lecturer and worked in the University of London,

guarantees in-depth analyses but leaves room for broader syntheses. This research is a synthetic, it integrates a philosophi exercise: interdisciplinary and managerial cal, psychological into a more holistic CR-model
academics, companies and their

of CR perspective the for benefit of

interest groups.

Department
before psychological and corporate

ofManagement
to Finland. leadership, responsiblity. Her

Studies at Brunei University

research interests include eco environmental has written management books and pub

The CR-model

returning

strategic She

companies, analyse the current it comprehensively of values,

antee a

in this paper can be used by their managers to and other personnel built state of their CR, and to improve at the levels and simultaneously and actions,
lasting change.

lished articles inmany journals, includingBusiness Strategy and the Environment, Corporate Social Responsibility
and Ethics, Planning. Environmental Sustainable Management, Development Journal and of Business Long Range

discourses
genuine and

in order
Business

to guar
asso

ciations further
CR-model

can utilize responsibility

provides

the model amongst

academics,

in a similar way their members.

other

in to The

researchers,

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

420 Tarja Ketola

consultants, poHtical decision-makers, non-govern

mental

organizations such as companies, and and

and other

interest

groups

of

financers analyse companies

local inhabitants, customers, a shareholders tool to differentiating true the levels of CR of compare organizations.

the values, discourses and actions tabulating of social and economic environmental, The three level responsibdities. analyses and their final of values syntheses show how different kinds lead to different kinds of discourses

and other

that both glorify the chosen values and defend those ofthe different actions that are not con sistent with the values.

Objectives CR comprises three important areas: environmental, social and economic It is essential responsibihties. that in aU these areas there is a match between
values, discourses and actions. The aim of

Values Discussion contrasting on corporate polarized UtiUtarian is often dichotomous, utiUtarian and duty ethics ethics are originated from the of Epicurus and (341-270 B.C.), theory of Thomas as the utiUtarian theories of a teleological calculating tomaximize ? i.e. a goal basis for ethics

corporate

this multidiscipHnary model by integrating rights/justice (2) increased in corporate responsible economic parts. The next part

research

is to buUd

a CR

(1) utiHtarian/egoistic, duty/ and virtue ethical corporate values with discourses, of psychological defences to achieve in order (3) environmental, study is divided social into and three

approaches. hedonist teachings are based on the hedonist-utiUtarian Hobbes (1651) as weU advocates cost/benefit idea was

consciousness

MiU (1861). Jeremy Bentham (1789) and John Stuart

UtiUtarianism oriented and actions. The -

corporate actions. The

of each part wiU feed into the findings and buUd into a hoHstic phUosophical CR-model. psychological-managerial (1) The philosophical on a comparison tic, part of the study is based between utiHtarian/egois and virtue ethics of duty/rights/justice

the benefit original for aU people, but in practice it turned out to maxi mize the benefit for some groups of people, as there are conflicts of interests and only the most powerful groups can get their own way. This idea approaches ethical stance, egoism, which aims at benefiting at the expense of others. In practice egoism has become a special case of utiUtarianism. another oneself With increasing social responsibdity requirements what do I get from not destroying people and planet? This is perverted CR: why should companies have environmental are asking: companies and

It investigates different teleologi companies. cal and deontological values of companies, how and how conflict, they may they are (or could be) integrated. The (2) psychological part of the study is based on the assumption that managerial and orga used in nizational defences psychological discourses have an important corporate in the slow, and often painful, change
cess towards a more responsible corporation.

role pro

and planet? Com any right to do harm to people the exploitation inherited panies right from slave who owning planters exploited people and nature to make is little difference between huge profits. There in the the treatment of a slave on a cotton plantation in 1907 and the treatment factory
enterprises,

(3) The

managerial part of the study analyses the a actions of companies with practical CR CR which emphasis model, hypothetical takes account of aU possible different combi
nations between corporate environmental,

U.S.A. textde
these

of a labourer Furthermore,
as an

in a in have Such

in China
nature

in 2007.
is considered

unUm

ited

resource

and

social eight

and extreme

economic

responsibilities. alternatives are: suicidal,

The ideal,

plutocentric, patriarchal, actions.The integrated

anthropocentric, and technocentric

biocentric, matriarchal

for legitimate particularly transfer their production large multinationals, wherever the social and environmental requirements which exerted by the stakeholders are the slackest. of companies, which InstitutionaUzation and maintaining the acceptabdity aims at

given companies is considered behaviour

stakeholders, dump. We, the licence to kiU and hurt.

three parts of the study wiU be into a hoHstic CR-model by cross

gaining

of corpo

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic

Corporate Responsibility Model 421 The seemingly value contradictory and duty/rights/justice bases of utiU

networks rate operations cooperation by forming a has become with stakeholders, strategic win-win for companies benefit 1999; Suchman, (Hoffman, from coop attainable benefits Stakeholders' 1995). eration with corporate cannot afford mental the companies are so tightly linked with that the stakeholders profits and growth to criticize the social and environ

ethics may if a just action benefits asmany apply simultaneously to examine as it is possible Hence groups possible. value bases of and deontological the teleological tarianism/egoism how they may be in conflict and how companies, they have been or could be integrated. seem to have had an inherent eco Companies or egoism towards utiUtarianism tendency times Smith since the of Adam (see (1723-90) Werhane, 2000), but their social and environmental nomic ever at first from duty/ pressures originated Economic ethics. goals were budt to rights/justice maximize corporate benefits wlule ethical goals were responsibiUty have listed as separate duties. StiU in aU countries that take been always companies there more

That may of these companies. performance also be why much of CR research has been focussing on how to make CR economicaUy for worthwhile

(e.g. Agle et al., 1999; Figge, 2005; Hart, companies Hart and MUstein, 1995; (1991) and 2003). Porter van it by started Linde Porter and der (1995) showing how competitive could be both green and companies at the same time by utiHzing green to gain financial benefits. strategies

technology researchers Hke Gladwin However, many prominent et al. (1995), Purser et al. (1995), Shrivastava (1995) such value-void and Welford warned (1995) against

than stakeholders require, particularly responsibility when national society cannot provide services for its poorer citizens. Roome (2006) Usts four relatively more and companies sociaUy responsible EngUsh their patriarchal owners from the 19th century, who with their employees better working provided care health education: and/or conditions, housing, Lanark wooUen miU owned

and Roth Bansal (2000) optimism. technological that even some companies felt that they discovered had social and environmental obligations. were Kant's ethics Immanul (1785) coun Duty Kant's categorical against utilitarianism. a advocates deontological imperative responsible, to that maxim basis for actions: act only according terattack a universal to become law. In you wish his view, it is not the goal of the action but the its moral motive behind the action that determines which
value.

New

by Robert Owen, Sir Titus Salt, Port Saltaire cloth factory and miU by Lever and Surdight soap factory by WiUiam Hesketh cocoa and confectionary New Earswick business by Joseph Rowntree. often companies subsidiaries The In the 21st century, multinational simdar services in their provide

successors, duty ethics and its deontological such as Benedictus de Spinoza's (1677) Ethics, John Rawls' (1971) Theory of Justice and Alan Gewirth's Kant's theory of rights in Reason toformalism), aU emphasize (belonging (1978) absolute,
theory,

and Morality that ethics are ethical

in developing countries. utiUtarian cited commonly dichotomy vs. duty ethics in corporate values may not be valid. diverse and thus corporate ReaUty may be more values may be multi-dimensional. The CR programs of some companies, which aim to integrate economic, social and ecological goals, indicate that ethical rules can increase profits direcdy as lower costs and higher as better corporate turnover and indirecdy image attracting interest groups for closer cooperation with the company. However, nearly aU companies give a economic clear priority over social and eco goals logical goals because they still find them conflicting. The is the crucial time issue in the integration of values bases In most of a company. perspective

thus denying
relativism.

the validity

of another

et al., ethical CR research Duty (e.g. Gladwin et 1995; Purser al., 1995; Shrivastava, 1995; Welford, 2002) is less abundant than utiHtarian because the duty ethical approach is considered normative, although in actual fact the utiHtarian tive. The only describes corporate reahty much better (still) approach than the duty ethical approach. WhUe ambitious, career-oriented researchers often conduct utiHtarian CR research to gain influential contacts in the business and academic world, the more concerned researchers out CR research. ethical carry duty approach is equaUy norma is that the utiHtarian difference

companies economy draw price oriented by mize

to meet

the management lives in a quartde its own and the owners' quick is why it becomes That requirements. short-term benefits and tries to maxi results at the cost of social and

the economic

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

422Tarja Ketola

TABLE I
The position of virtues in between two extremes of evil

extreme EvU: =>

Virtue:

middle

road

extreme Evil:<=

-arrogance

=> => -envy => -greed => =? ?gorging

humble justness generosity kindness moderation

pride <=

<=

cringing

extoUing

<= exuberance <= fawning <= anorexia

-hostiHty

-slackness

and falsity

=> -indulging =>

<= loyalty puritanism flexibiHty and reliabiHty

<= rigidity

and home

truth teUing

results. If the management and the owners ecological and the valued survival, long-term profitability company could integrate utiHtarian and duty/rights/ justice ethical values so that it could reach longer term economic, social and ecological goals together.

of situations a person coping mechanisms cannot control. Aristode said that, in (or company) course between too much order to find the middle desperate and too little, the virtue practitioners must find their solutions rationaUy and not arbitrarily, and they must to keep their emotions in check. learn self-discipline the purpose of human life was happiness. In happiness he saw three complementary forms: life of pleasure and enjoyment, life as a free and respon If sible citizen and life as a thinker and phdosopher. For Aristotle road in life, we can fulfil aU three find the middle forms of happiness at the same time. virtue ethics have been adopted by Aristotelian many disciplines. Nussbaum (1993) and Sen (1995) we have virtue ethics to develop Rawls' (1971) Even for economics. the of further justice theory BeU research WendeU futures guru, (1997), sceptical used
virtues as a prime candidate for universal

PhUosopher Georg Henrik von Wright

found that value rationaHty which has has been led

(1997)

goal rationaHty, crisis. As value questions have been excluded from our civiHzation whole reason, people, society and towards have lost their abiHty to direct development von to goals. According Wright, life-preserving current ethics research the does ics. Since on ethics has neglected virtue eth utilitarian and duty of integration not seem to work in practice, virtue

displaced by to an orientation

ethics could provide a practicable value basis for CR. Virtue ethics are based on the thoughts of Socrates, Plato and particularly Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Virtue and nature of ethics take account of the both motives the actors. When the intention consideration evaluating an action and an actor, (a) of doing good should be taken into behaviour the action has led to evU; and of the slipped actor

accepts

Aris values. Winjberg (2000) finds a totelian ethics and politics. Cafaro (2001) develops on virtues. based environmental ethics of theory In management sciences, Solomon (1999, 2003) in et al. (2003) show how virtues and Cameron to Crockett exceUence. business ethics lead (2005) has made cultural ethics strong business case in favour of the paradigm of virtue: he explains how virtue a champion a company can make for its a very and normative of strategic et al. (2005) use AristoteUan in exceUence for management

a link between

even when

(b) the past immaculate It is easier to forgive the punishment. should mitigate a single deed that was done by accident or while of unsound mind an attitude

than continual, intentional evU deeds. In Ethics Aristotle (348 B.C.) describes a virtue as

that makes people good and helps them do their work weU. Aristode says that a virtue is amiddle two evils (see Table I). One extreme of road between evU comprises of the seven deadly sins, and the other extreme In between of evil includes their opposites. the two evU extremes lie the virtues. Each of the two excessive evUs can often be found
the same person or company, e.g. arrogance and

unification practical exceUence. Nahapiet virtues as guidelines cooperation.

and Statler (2005) integrate Oppegaard into the and effectiveness ethics organizational virtues. of wisdom AristoteUan practical Nurmi ciples of (1984) has household model. studied the AristoteUan as look management Good managers prin a business after their

in

cringing

or envy and extoUing.

They

are the extreme,

managerial

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic like the Aristotelian

However, as Nurmi

Corporate Responsibility Model

423

personnel
household.

master
points

looks after his

out, nowa

days

slavery,

child

unacceptable; is suitable as a CR model only if it is agement model modernized and globaHzed. Eastern and Taoism, Buddhism philosophies which are also reHgions, advocate these middle way virtues as the basis of good life (Buddha, around 540-480 B.C. and Lao Tzu, around 571-480 B.C.; see also Khera, 2001; Koehn, 1999). The

labour and gender inequality are man therefore the caring household

point out the imbalances and problems of discourses and attempt to revise the prevaiUng practices. The CR speeches and other words of companies In their may differ from their values and actions. are happy discourses with interest groups companies to teU about their fine values, but they also try to defend ferent
actions.

themselves interest

against put

the accusations forth concerning

that dif their and Lee between

groups

The

and empirical research results by Robertson Crittenden (2003) show that virtue ethics are the that is suitable for only form of moral philosophy both western and eastern culture and for both cap italist and socialist ideology. virtue Hence ethics have ural Virtues the nat exemplify in the world law (lex naturae): aU people share the same sense of morality, of their irrespective religion and other background. For the purpose of building in response the best potential international companies. to serve as a value basis in

(2003) corporate rhetoric and reality. CR rhetoric changes faster than the corresponding reaUty. In the learning to tries catch process reality up with the rhetoric but since also rhetoric makes constant progress, the gap remains. initiative, Corporate top management and external from important pressures leadership interest groups have similar influence on both, but legitimacy pressures have greater impact on rhetoric

empirical studies conducted by Rhee show that there is a huge gap

noticed

a CR-model, which to own their could, wishes, companies apply in their every subsidiary aU over the world, relativistic ethics would be counterproductive. For this reason this research on and concentrates ignores ethical relativism, ethical universalism, maintaining ethical values (see Donaldson, the ethical theories chosen for are: utilitarian ethics duty ethics)
value

and this deepens the gap. However, Rhee and Lee that the "do the right thing" organization culture helps the responsibility reaUty to catch up the
rhetoric.

Eden
business

(1999)
associations

has discovered
resort to

that companies
"expertise and

and
ratio

nality" evasion who

rhetoric

in their attempts

that there are global

of responsibilities. They understand the issues better act

to legitimize their claim to be experts than the laymen

1996). Consequendy, further model development towards (with its tendency (with
virtue

and who
ization.

rationaUy. PsychologicaUy speaking use the defence called inteUectual these companies There are many defence mecha psychological use to pro that individuals and organizations
against pressures. anxiety Organizational caused by and internal manage

its successors:
ethics.

rights

egoism), and justice

offers many

ethics and
bases

nisms
philosophy tect and

In conclusion,

themselves external

for the economic, ities of companies. possible

social and ecological responsibil With the help of the values it is to integrate these seemingly for companies areas of into harmonic

rial defences 1997; Brown Kets de Vries, 1991; MiUer,

self-esteem

have been

conflicting responsibilities and holistic business activities. Values responsible need to be transformed from thoughts to words and
communicated to aU concerned.

studied widely (e.g. Brown, and Starkey, 2000; Feldman, 2003; Kets de Vries and 2001; MiUer, 1984, their 1993). Organizations regulate
ego-defences. Defences are

through

Discourses sociaUy constructive. The discourses of ruling groups, such as political and have the to leaders, corporate power strongest to mould their liking. Discourse society analyses can Discourses are not neutral but

in protecting the moral integrity ofthe or organizational whether individual personality even at the expense of the morality of sacrificing actions. It is more important for (individuals and) instrumental organizations to face the
actions.

to feel that they are moral persons of i.e., the immorality reality,

than their

Defence evaluate CR

to analyses have not yet been used In fact defences have been discourses.

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

424 Tarja Ketola

Admits net harm? YES_ Concessions: -introjection -sublimation NO_ Justifications: -rationalization -intellectualization -devaluing -reaction formation -object displacement -compensation

has caused

net harm, utdize justifications. Common include rationaUzation, inteUectuaUza justifications tion and devaluing. In addition, reaction through formation an organization tries to hide been caught. Through object this anger to a third party, if it does not dare
to retaUate on the informer.

YES

having can direct

to use

its anger for it displacement

Admits responsibility? Excuses: Refusals: -denial -repression -undoing -omnipotent fantasies -splitting -projection -projective identification -regression -idealization -isolation

compensation

An both

organization net harm and

uses

concessions when

it admits but that

Introjection subUmation refines done

responsibiUty is a helpless way of pleading gudty, is a constructive form of concession

for misconduct.

Figure 1 Organizational
to accusations of

defences within
misconduct

four responses
(Ketola,

organizational

2004, p. 156; 2006a, p. 151). in the corporate (Ketola, 2006a), and analysis of a crisis in every-day CR

the primitive urges into repairing the wrong and into reorienting towards future chaUenges. an empir Bradford and Garrett (1995) conducted re ical study on the impact of the four corporate sponses on corporate image. In their research setting on unethical to accusations responded in four different situations: commission that it did not (company could that it did not have control over the

utilized situation
rhetoric.

discourse but not

companies behaviour

Managerial defences have often painful,

organizational psychological an important role in the slow, and change process responses The towards a more Swajkowski (1992) devel to accusations of excuses, justifi

could provide evidence (company commit the aUeged action), control provide evidence occurrence), dence that evaluate cluded standards

responsible corporation. a matrix of four oped organizational cations and concessions. defences can misconduct:

(company could provide evi to standards were used inappropriate

refusals, different

be positioned into can be adapted 1 shows. This framework Figure the analysis and evaluation of the CR discourses any kind of organization.
When an organization admits neither net

psychological as this matrix to of

the action) and agreement (company con that the aUegations were vaUd). In aU situations concessions had the best impact on corporate image. Concession is extremely difficult for both orga as admitting nizations and individuals, harm and attacks the ego they have aU their Uves responsibiUty to become in their dream inflated godUke. The serve to protect defences this dream psychological from The makes the reaUty. language of it even more ethics difficult is condemning, which to admit fadure and

harm

nor

it resorts to refus responsibiHty for misconduct, an als. These refusals can take different forms: be in denial, it may repress mis try to undo

may organization it may into its unconscious, conduct with misconduct tricks, or it may have fantasies
misconduct.

about

its own greatness admits

omnipotent in order to forget its harm but not

moraUty

In Fineman's the view, (1998) responsibdity. is usuaUy evaluated by the of companies cannot respond cognitive language of reason, which

If an

responsibiHty ting,

organization for misconduct,

net

it uses

projection, projective are common excuses, regression can claim

excuses. SpHt identification and with which an else is respon an also wipes from Isolation helps the both

to the conflicting emotions and their staff companies Fineman's (1996) empirical study on experience. out how of six supermarkets managers pointed environmental
create amongst

and
managers

other

responsibiUty
enormous surges

pressures
of emo

organization sible for the occurrence.

that someone IdeaHzation

tions ranging from pride to shame, fear to defiance, to enthusiasm. Unfor caution to rage and cynicism and behavioural aspects have cognitive tunately, humans and of the emotional overshadowed aspects in and their organizations research practical man It would staff be important for managers, agement. and external interest groups to learn about defences.

clean of any misconduct. organization an organization to distance itself incident and the accusers.

for which admit responsibUity Organizations, misconduct but do not admit that their misconduct

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic

Corporate Responsibility Model 425

could help them to find a shared Such understanding and into account takes emotions language, which which makes it easier to admit responsibUity speeds up the start of subHmation. A shared language enables compa language nies could avoid the vicious circle of mistakes, which in turn would decrease human suffering caused by anxiety from the overuse force of defences. their members in which into multiple are defences Organizations defence exploitation the development adopting a new of a shared line of action. By and line of action

A)
economic responsibility ^ A -. 8 __\_/ ^y/

^1
s*

Sj

^/

/\\

fb

, V- responsibility
environmental

social responsibility

Figure 2 Corporate
2006b, sibdity bility; social p. = 100): social

responsibiUty

emphases

(Ketola,
respon responsi =

1. Suicidal:

erase simultaneously. employed are even more until recruited defences the problem, no honourable way out can be found, and the egos and its members of the organization (see coUapse If companies understand 2006a). example in Ketola, how the ego defences work, they can lower their The of mistakes. threshold reporting personnel's interest groups fate of those companies external mistakes
them.

many these do not When

responsibdity 2. maximum economic Ideal: = environmental responsibility responsibiUty responsibiUty; > economic 5.

minimum economic = environmental

responsibiUty responsibiUty; > social 4. responsibd 3.

Plutocentric: economic = environmental ity social ronmental responsibility responsibility

Anthropocentric: = envi responsibility environmental = social respon

responsibiUty; > economic

Biocentric.

could, for their part, ease the admit their that immediately deny, reason or justify

= social 6. Patriarchal: economic responsibiUty > environmental responsibility responsibility; 7. Techno sibility
centric: economic = responsibility = environmental respon

responsibiUty

relative

to those who

> social sibility

responsibility responsibility.

responsibility;
environmental

8.

Matriarchal:

social

defences stiU have important roles to Nevertheless, Inmy view, the defences act as in organizations. play too conscious of the gap (a) bumpers against becoming between subconscious as the corporate reaHty and its rhetoric, too fast breaks (b) against change and as (c) batteries in their preconscious

responsibility

> economic

demands, effort to prepare for the change. UsuaUy refusals act as as bat excuses as breaks and justifications bumpers, teries, while concessions imply that a change towards amore responsible corporation is taking place. Discourse analyses teach us a great deal about the
psychology of corporate culture. Defences expressed

com that they may be wrong, interest from their groups who panies gain sympathy to which find solutions cooperate just wiUingly ting the possibiUty benefit The to do not have of companies defend their current practices; instead the discourses can be harnessed to budd more responsible practices. can become Words deeds. aU parties. discourses

in corporate discourses pinpoint the issues that are as the defences to different difficult companies, chosen each reflect the company unconsciously by ways characteristic problems. find ways defences on responsible often use a lot of words actions
releases Becoming

Actions major advances in mapping in theory and practice (see e.g. CarroU, 1979, 1995, 1999, 2004; Clarkson, 1995; Desjardins, 1998; Frederick, 1986; Goodpaster, 1983; van Mar et 1999; War al., 1997; Takala, rewijk, 2003; Nasi tick and Cochran, 1985; Vos, 2003; Welford, 2002, Wheeler and SiUanpaa, 1997; Wood, How 1991). research has made the area both ever, CR studies have in the CR so far paid little attention to emphases between different 2 presents a CR emphasis model. companies. Figure Some of these concepts have already been used by other researchers. O'Riordan (1981) separated the variations CR

to deal with that company to This knowledge enables the company of preventing the negative effects of those of business to defend actions. Companies their irresponsible speeches,
even subconscious

and the tone of their defence

and reports conscious are negative, the

press
mes

aggressive.

about

sages of their words helps companies even positive words. their discourses into concessive, not to Then do need they deny their actions or invent excuses or justifications for them. By admit

to transform

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

426 Tarja Ketola technocentric ment, (1995) centric Pearce and and ecocentric sustainable et al. (1995), develop Shrivastava There some are not many companies Uke this. However, aim to become genuinely ideaUy

(1991), Purser

and eco Iyer (1999) anthropocentric sustainable Their development. anthropo a centrism is rather calculative inhuman, technocentric approach for the rich to solve prob innovations. Chambers technological a genuinely introduced (1987) anthropocentric to poor pays special attention approach, which Our Common Future (WCED, people. 1987) is a
compromise between technocentric, anthropocen

companies The responsible. ment have although luxury

of sustainable pioneers develop close to the idea, e.g. Body Shop its cosmetic products are not necessary but come It is easier actions to carry out hoUsticaUy in cooperatives than in incorpo where the profit and growth pres purpose social countries of fair trade is to and should ecological take for

items.

lems with

responsible rated companies sures are more integrate the

acute. The economic,

(1990) had approaches. Colby eco- and five categories along the Hne of anthropo-, biocentric sustainable Also Colby's development. is reaUy technocentric. alternative anthropocentric In taking environmental the concept responsibiHty, of ecocentrism is favoured by economists and the of biocentrism Ecocent concept by phUosophers. rism finds humans and nature equaUy important and attempts caUed deep to co-develop them. Biocentrism is often it sees nature as a whole more ecology; as humans are simply one than humans, important animal species in the ecosystem. In my preference preference centrism CR for model social anthropocentrism responsibUity, responsibiHty economic and iUustrates biocentrism and techno ecological achieved eight below.

tric and ecocentric

responsibdities developed countries. In practice fair trade is mar developing business in developed amongst ginal companies countries and has remained the responsibiUty of only
consumers and not of companies.

who won Maathai, Wangari Prize in 2004, estabUshed a Green in 1977. This African-wide Kenya

the Nobel Belt Movement movement

Peace in inte

social and ecological grates economic, responsibdities trees prevents in practice. Planting erosion, enables and gives directly and indirectly work to biodiversity local women smaU-scale Green who can make a sustainable farming Belt Movement with women's after the trees have genuine CR entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship because its way and "soft" social
naturaUy to most

Uving in grown. The sustainable also in general in the

combines

development promotes

for ecological the view that can be

responsibiHties through different A

technological CR emphases

simultaneously solutions. The model's

world developed "hard" economic

responsibiUties comes

of integrating and ecological

women.

company

and ecological The Hfespan of because interest close it does

are briefly described that minimizes its economic, social a is suicidal company. (1) responsibiHty such an organization not satisfy the needs is very short of any of its

(3) Plutocentric
contemporary

companies
companies

are plentiful.
prioritize

Nearly
economic

aU

over social and ecological responsibiUties bdities. These are the ethics ofthe market are difficult which for a single company without special efforts. An (4) anthropocentric a preference responsibiUties

responsi economy, to avoid

and authorities financiers groups. UsuaUy it down. Yet these kinds of faUing stars keep on on like shadows of the dark side of moon flickering the outskirts their dishonest shp out, but of business owners communities. In some cases snatch big money before they cases it is just a question in many of ends that up in entrepreneurship of damage its short Hfe the company may to its shareholders,
suppHers, personnel, neigh

social company gives over others. Charitable

foUow this principle. organizations Anthropocen trism is a part of their business idea but it may in their workplace sometimes human be forgotten relations. asweU In Finland there are a number of so-caUed social companies, which employ handicapped people as fuUy capable people. If at least 30% of their the staff is physicaUy or psychologicaUy handicapped,

unprofessional

bankruptcy. During cause a great deal

financiers, customers,

if it has, for example, and even nature, an waste in dumped irresponsible way. is the direct opposite of the (2) An ideal company bours suicidal economic, company. social An and ideal company ecological maximizes responsibilities. its

to cover the the company subsidizes government salaries and lower than difference between average
average work contributions.

biocentric company over economic responsibdity

(5) A

emphasizes ecological or social responsibiUty.

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic Environmental ronmental

organizations,

427 Corporate Responsibility Model on envi service

environ

organizations responsibiHties;
such as waste

focus solely environmental

treatment,

economic
because our

responsibiUties,
contemporary

is a rare phenomenon
society expects compa

nies

to yield

profits

in order

to survive. and

Some

non strive

mental

and environmental consultancy technology to economic also pay attention businesses responsi bUities. is a traditional form of (6) A patriarchal company business: during the first decades of industrialization companies in their local responsibiHties as welfare the communities. society is Nowadays, to for demands services its citizens, again decreasing economic and social increasing
re-emerged.

governmental for matriarchal nomic issues

organizations objectives

communes

anthropocentric survive only if some of their external such as citizens responsibilities.

eco initiaUy, but usuaUy take Biocentric, priority. graduaUy can and matriarchal companies interest groups, or governments, bear their economic social and Fair trade aims to combine

in the western

world

often

took

both

corporate
Many

social
companies

responsibilities
have become

have
inter

in first world companies. responsibdities ecological since these companies want to gain profits However, the consumers from fair trade, they exploit by a more fair than price on the prod ready charging ucts. This is not it genuinely ical responsibilities. AU economicaUy responsible, nor does social and ecolog integrate economic,

nationalized

countries citi developing zens stiU do not have any social services provided by first world the state. Most multinational companies and in many accept
countries

some be

social responsibilities
they operate.

in the third world

Hence a company

where

in developed countries and may plutocentric in countries. developing patriarchal to be (7) techno A few companies have decided centric. They and ecological take their economic not but do accept more responsibiHties very seriously than the law requires. Particu social responsibilities and German larly Nordic that technology wiU solve to invest and are wiUing mental often believe companies their ecological problems in environ significantly

to move in aU, it is possible for companies to if they continue ideal responsibiUty towards increase their social and ecological responsibiUties while level of economic the necessary course pioneers wiU reach the ideal responsibdity. Of state first, but one should not give up with the fol holding and lowers either, because toddle behind they wid even stride along once they reaUze the sometimes or their real responsibiUties in this image benefits world. that lag behind the general companies a are trend worry. They do not vol responsibility Laws and market take any responsibiUties. untarily Those nomic,
meant

onto

The systematic mindset of these technologies. is at home with the systematic nature of nationalities technological technologies. in these countries, also ex search are high priorities are in abundance. perts in environmental technology
Economy "hard", and task-oriented environmental areas, which technology coincide with

Since

education

and re

instruments, which social and

for these

compel ecological

business

to bear

eco are

responsibdities,

companies.

are the

Conclusions:

A holistic

CR-model

behaviour

expected and human-oriented, and traditional men do not feel comfortable with them. When creating a traditional man gets as a and adapting technology are "soft" by-product economic and tasks, not people. By integrating a man environmental technological responsibilities can feel that he is making ager or an entrepreneur and doing good at the same time in a mas money culine way. At least for Finns nature is an important spiritual resource. Thus a chance to integrate busi ness and nature benefits is a welcome possibility. (8) A matriarchal company, ecological responsibilities which more finds social and than important some social contacts, which focus on

of a traditional man.

Social

issues

Matching The social and ecological economic, courses and actions can be harmonized values, dis

ing them item by item. They II. Table Companies ofthe match

by integrat are cross tabulated in

can use this table to analyse the extent at value, discourse of its responsibiUties and action levels. This requires honesty from man an of it is agers and other members organization: human to deny or find excuses and justifications for mismatches (see Figure in order to make them look like matches groups are more 1). External interest

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

428 Tarja Ketola TABLE

Matching the values, discourses and actions of

II
social and environmental responsibiHties

economic,

Values

Discourses

ActionsMatch

Environmental

responsibiHty Match AU values

Economic responsibiHty AU levels of economic responsibility Social responsibiHty AU levels of social responsibiHty AU of environmental responsibiHty levels AU discourses AU actions Matches of aU

in such an evaluation, but they may not objective have access to aU the information. is why, That a between its and interest company cooperation groups would bring the most comprehensive results.

external

social and ecological If most of the responsibiHties. and internal discourses contain defences, the has company responsibiHty problems. into which in discourses defence groups the refusals, belong: If certain concessions.

It is significant defences found excuses, defences

Values The first step is to investigate what the company about its economic, social and ecological values

says and

company the defences economic, company

match the

or justifications time time in the discourses, after the appear a has faUen into vicious circle. Comparing of social discourses and to the of ecological the nature corresponding values aUows the its discourses to

to compare them with their real values, if possible. a tacit values develop. Ufetime During company's than any They have a stronger impact on personnel are usuaUy revised after major written values, which such as mergers of new and appointments are Tacit values turned management. subconsciously or crisis. The written to in times of uncertainty and changes, tacit values comparing rights/justice
how bases the into

to change
corporate

values.

Actions The is to analyse the the kind of company. What responsibiHty practices true of actions does the company carry responsible out in practice? Are they random actions or pro third step of the evaluation grams? What

a company can be evaluated by them to the utilitarian/egoistic, duty/ of and virtue

values account.

ethics,
take

and by determining
these different ethics

corporate

is their time-span from past to future? are more than happy to teU the world Companies about their responsible actions. They eagerly advo cate them in their pubHcations and speeches because aU deeds that can be interpreted
image.

Discourses

social or ecological The discourses step responsibiUty of a company from the point of view of The the psychological defences they incorporate. and environmental annual, responsibiUty company's reports, brochures, management
analyses.

to reflect economic, responsibiHty, wiU improve the

second

is to examine

the

corporate

is that usuaUy companies give a long problem on as much actions elaborating list their responsible smaU issues as on big ones, so that the list would The seem as possible. Reporting long and broad as Initiative such the Global standards, Reporting some if order into this chaos (GRI) could bring as

and top press releases, web-pages are for avadable anyone for speeches
themselves can conduct an

Companies

even more they minutes

since study on their discourses thorough can add to this material their internal reports,

discussions and other confi of meetings, includes many dential discourses. This information to the company's in relation defences economic,

only companies agreed to adopt them. They may the standards might fear that implementing radicaUy actions. shorten the list of the genuinely responsible Many taking companies responsibilities. dare to teU about ActuaUy often their failures they have in to,

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic because the fadures would

organizations

Corporate Responsibility Model 429 anyway.

are

become
and

pubUc

excuse

Non-governmental

the media

tions need personnel

or justify actions, both require mending. Ac to be raised to such a level that the whole can be proud of them and of their company. discourses should criticaUy evaluate cor ideas and the respon

ofbad news. The one who manages to teU them first, has an edge over others in creating a story about the event for the owners, convincing and authorities financiers, political decision-makers, active broadcasters general defence ble public to hear. This usage. Companies irresponsible actions and overestimate actions with the assistance the truth Finding but it may poses a danger spot for their may underestimate their responsi of psychological de

Corporate porate actions, brainstorm improvement about honestly and openly communicate sible and irresponsible actions. Discourses link values and actions. personnel feedback how values on how

teU the They are turned into action and give this has succeeded.

fences. outsiders,

is naturaUy difficult for be difficult also for internal CR-model Different discourses of discourses tarian/egoistic,
values.

and personnel. That is why the auditors, managers actors and the immediate witnesses have a key position in finding out the truth about corporate actions. Most actions leave clues and evidence behind, but scene. only few people have access to the "crime" External mental and internal economic, social and environ auditors do spot-checks and report their find ings either to the authorities or in corporate reports. more difficult to evaluate corporate actions than It is values or discourses. Indicators that could

kinds

of values

lead to different

kinds

of

and actions. and actions

Figure 3 shows what kinds can be derived from utili and virtue ethical

duty/rights/justice

corporate and compare the responsibiUty levels of actions weigh are not easy to build as different lines of business have such a variety of potentially responsible actions, dif in the same line of business have so ferent companies varied faciUties, and different units, departments, groups and individuals in the same company have so variable resources avadable. including on companies. conflicting responsibiUty expectations it is often possible to build a rather Nevertheless, and irre picture of the responsible comprehensive a actions certain of time and sponsible during period
to compare them to corporate values. Are these

I. Utilitarian/egoistic ethical values look for benefits in aU actions. UtiHtarian ethics would be quite a useful basis for values, if benefits were searched just benefits gained for for aU humans companies tend to be themselves. short-term and nature, The and not business

at the expense of some (humans and nature) who wiU long-term

egoistic profits interest groups try to retaliate

interest groups,

nature,

In addition, different exert a spectrum of

and cause With denies fuU of

and

damage to the company. a company values utiHtarian/egoistic its responsibiHty for anyone else than discourses of ? denials, refusals
fantasies

itself. The

such a company
?

are

repressions,
or excuses

undoing
spHtting,

omnipotent

and/or tacit fulfiUing the company's written values? Which of the values are ready in use and are not ? and which why? Ho do the economic, social and ecological values and actions differ from each other and why? If there are major gaps between the values both and actions, either of them need revising. values or actions or

actions

identifications, projections, projective ? and isolations sions, idealizations it defends which its irresponsible The

regres through actions.

business environment wUl not stand con stant refusals for long: a company with refusal discourses is on a suicidal course. A utiHtarian/ egoistic company with in its business excuse discourses lasts environment because

actions can also be compared to corpo Corporate rate discourses concerning the same issues. How do match each other? Are discourses used to defend they irresponsible actions and/or to exaggerate responsible actions, or do the discourses reaUy reflect the actions? If there are major differences between actions and discourses or if the discourses are used mainly to deny,

longer excusing plutocentric actions on the basis of priori stiU appeals to tizing economic responsibiHties the most short-term interest significant groups:
owners, financiers, most customers, authorities

and political

decision-makers. lead to CR strive for just if

II. Duty/rights/justice ethical values actions. This value basis could

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

430 Tarja Ketola VALUES:

IA.Egoistic ethical values: -use value benefits the to IB.Utilitarian ethical values: benefits to the company and its partners

I
.-K I_)

IDISCOURSES:

ACTIONS: I

._K Refusals: Suicidal: -no economic, social (1) denial " I_) ' or ecological responsi (2) repression bilities (3) undoing company (4) omnipotent fantasies Excuses: i-\ Plutocentric: i-\ (5) splitting -only economic '-j/ I-J -use value (6) projection responsibilities (7) projective identification (8) regression (9) idealization (10) isolation Justifications: i-\ I-V (11) rationalization (12) intellectualization -social (13) devaluing (14) reaction formation (15) object replacement beings (16) compensation Concessions: (17) introjection (18) sublimation _k i ?^^ -justness -generosity ?r----;, -loyalty ^Patriarchal: -economic and social resp, Anthropocentric: responsibilities Technocentric: <J -economic and ecological responsibilities Biocentric: l-ecological responsibilities Matriarchal: -social and ecological responsibilities Ideal: I -economic, social and ecological responsibilities

II. i.-\ Duty/rights/justic ethical values: I-V and to -duty right humans protect and nature -justice to all

III. Virtue ethical values:

-kindness -moderation -flexibility

-reliability_||_| |_ Figure 3 A hoUstic CR-model. and individuals had a shared view companies of the meaning of CR. The problem is that ? act a Kant's categorical in way imperative a universal that could become law may mean to different different kinds of actions people and organizations. Duty/rights/justice ethical values are not real values: they do not the contents of values, determine only the form. They leave the level of responsibiHty for the actors good at justifying people are reaUy actions. Companies ethical values duty/rights/justice And their responsible. utilize They rationaliza to decide. itself to these values, either foUows sublimation or feels actively through foUow them and passively faUs

commits them into

that it cannot

self-reproach introjection.In the through latter case, the company feels deep responsi

and nature but finds eco bility for humans a problem nomic it cannot responsibUities is a matriarchal company, which solve. This can its social and integrate ecological cannot but make its business responsibUities viable. economicaUy three responsibUities The wish to bear with aU combined the a good enter ask its interest triple respon a vicious cir sinks self and

presenting are only

effectively justifications reaction tions, inteUectuaHzations, devaluing, and formations, compen object replacements sations ? to justify their actions. With justifi can justify anthropocentric, cations a company or technocentric actions. biocentrism, patriarchal Hence the spectrum of companies foUowing ethical values iswide. duty/rights/justice III. Virtue
excuses

partiaUy different

inabiHty to do so may destroy prise that would only need to to for achieve the groups help The obstacle becomes sibUity. cle: realizing in self-pity, accusing others' belief The kind its inability and with

the company

discourses

introjective, it reinforces its own

in its inabiHty.

ethical values so virtues extreme

and

define

the
cannot

contents Hke
be

of

the values, Universal tween

that defences,

refusals,
used.

values

justifications,

road in be (as a middle evUs) offer clear values for A company, which

of company that follows virtue ethical can eventuaUy sublimation through integrate its economic, social and ecological responsibiHties into ideal actions. While use psy other companies in their discourses chosen to carry to defend out, an the ideal

companies

to foUow.

defences chological actions they have

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic does of not discourse but acts: defence

Corporate Responsibility Model 431 its takes hand, the defences drive it to deny, repress and undo aU hard facts about its irresponsible deeds or to spHt and project the responsibiHty of its evU actions on so that it loses its sense of reaHty and begins to that it is acting responsibly. If the facts are the last defence is to regress or undeniable, desperate others, believe responsibiHty. is also at the ethical company duty/rights/justice of its discourses. Its values obHge it to be mercy responsible but its actions cannot fulfil this require as the values lack precise contents. ment For this A reason others the company to assure tries with discourses that it is foUowing the values. At the same time it uses the discourses to justify irresponsible actions in isolate itself to avoid

company

progressive advantage to enable the fulfilment of nism of aU, subUmation, its virtue ethical values in practice. The internal and can be interest groups of this company external the of business humbly pride hoUsticaUy responsible actions The and their own contributions to them. is not quite as simple as reaUty of business have a suggest. Many Figure 3 would companies of different kinds of values and variety consequently many different kinds of discourses and actions.

the most

mecha

Linkingpin
discourses Values, in different ways Figure and actions in different influence alternatives. kinds of linking discourses uses dis to in each alternative. ethical company The company
values it

each other

4 dlustrates

the different

pin positions In an utilitarian/egoistic are in a central

courses to praise

of discourses

position.

them look as responsible as possible in a itself given situation. The company tries to convince and others with justifications in rationaHzations, reaction teUectualizations, formations, devaluing, and compensations that it has object replacements done its best and better than others although it has not in reaching its values. quite succeeded In a virtue ethical company values are the alpha and are based on universal virtues omega of CR. They accepted by people aU over the world. The company has truly committed itself to foUow these values. In situation it evaluates beforehand the responsi every of aU alternatives and chooses the most biHty level

order tomake

corporate

considers

responsible. defend with actions. phrenic: company The on

At

the same time it utilizes refusals discourses and excuses turn

discourses

its irresponsible the company schizo drive the its level of the other
_

hand, the defences to omnipotent fantasies about and to idealize itself; on

the one

responsibility

UTILITARIAN/EGOISTIC ETHICS: /^VALUES~^\ -advertise \*-/ / V responsibility/ ^-^ /^ I \.

Discolrses ^v -praise -deny and \_ excuse values J irresponsible/ actjon?^^

/actions \ ( -benefit the *\company/ ^^~?^

^->^_____^ DUTY/RIGHTS/JUSTICE ETHICS:

/VALUES ^v RSES ^^^\ _/-"""[DlSCOl to -assert \/ -justify ( -oblige j ( V responsibility/ I commitmer t irresponsible J-*l values actions \^_____^/ \^to ^^/ VIRTUE ETHICS: _ /VALUES ^v -virtues as a basis\ for responsible J V actions / (

/^^ \. ./

ACTIONS ^"^\ -try to follow the values \ but invain J

/discourses ^v /-sublimations enable\ / responsible actions \ and admit r \ irresponsible actions /

>^ /^Actions -aremostly \ \ responsible _j n -improve from feedback \ I

Figure ethical

4 The

relationships alternatives.

between

values,

discourses

and

actions

in

utilitarian/egoistic,

duty/rights/justice

and

virtue

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

432 Tarja Ketola None of responsible alternatives for implementation. of us is infaUible, nor can we predict aU consequences admits our actions. The company immediately turn out to be actions that its of for those HabUity In every situation it looks for a chance irresponsible. to sublimate its primitive defence needs into virtuous, In a virtue ethical actions. company, mending responsible each other and actions reinforce values, discourses as a result of constant mutual feedback. home to prompt more seemed Finland, country, than those in other countries. The actions of the case companies varied between

defences

The and technocentric. patriarchal eco to not their did manage integrate companies of and environmental social nomic, responsibiUties; on economic responsibdities they either concentrated plutocentric, them with either actions), or combined (plutocentric or envi social responsibiUties (patriarchal actions) ronmental actions). (technocentric responsibiUties the actions of these com between The differences from the extent of globaliza panies were originated tion of their actions. The retad chain operated mainly some activities in Sweden, Norway in Finland with and Baltic tions. The with countries, emphasizing oil company operating also technocentric ac in Finland mainly in Sweden, Belgium, in many other offices action in environ

Further The

research

opportunities

in Figure 3 can be tested presented The author has already tested it in in companies. based in Finland: a mobUe three large companies CR-model a retaU chain executed and an oU company. separately, the compari

phone company, As the tests were

show sons are preHminary. The empirical findings contents of initial in the variations values, great but these companies, discourses and actions between not in their final values of utiHtarian The levels. responsibiHty the companies were a mixture of

Portugal countries,

plants production and and Canada, took technocentric

action countries and plutocentric mentaUy concerned in others. The mobile company operated globaUy, in most European to be plutocentric and tended in technocentric and AustraUa; the U.S. countries, Nordic countries and Germany; and patriarchal in developing in a the test of the CR model In conclusion, com od chain and retad mobde company, phone tend to pany showed how at least large companies from levels 1 stay at lower levels of CR, progressing and 2 to level 3 in response to external pressure and
business opportunities.

the and duty ethical values, with egoistic, AU three companies on values. utilitarian emphasis issues as one item amongst their had separated CR them into aU the values. values, without integrating to CR may be common for This add-on approach were values The stated supposed to large companies. apply to aU units in every country they operated. used many different kinds of AU three companies psychological without emphasizing ordinary in particular. any of them to not did these companies Hence any extremes go with one defence or group of defences, nor did they to in a rapid succession or aU defences use most defend their behaviour (in crises this might Ketola, 2006a). The refusals, excuses and justifica a tions were not strict but moderate. They foUowed pattern: from refusals through chronological The com to concessions. and justifications excuses and with justifi panies spent longer times The refusals and concessions. than with cations as temporary acted refusals bumpers companies' excuses as breaks against too fast against reahty, their as batteries and their justifications change demands then when preparing for the change that concessions in the companies' The stakeholders manifested. gradual excuses in any single normal situation though, as iUustrated in happen, defences their discourses,

countries.

It is possible

to put

the CR-model

contemporary practice by linking and planning. The author has operational strategic to this effect Ketola drafted an extended model can be CR-model The by complemented (2005).
another three columns: strategies, operations and

in corporate it to corporate

measures

with

feedback.

alternatives
discourses

to match
and actions.

They have corresponding levels of values, the different the extended how model the of kinds kinds in the is

The

author

tested

three companies empiricaUy operations companies discourses

mentioned

above. The

extension

reveaUng: and measures/feedback reduce and the different to actions

it shows

strategies, the three of values, of final

simdar

levels. It seems that learned corporate responsibdity and prevent creativity repress corporate practices new CR ideas from materializing.

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic References

Corporate Responsibility Model 433 People First', IDS Discussion Paper No 240 (University of Sussex, Brighton). Clarkson, M. B.: 1995, 'A Stakeholder Framework for and Evaluating Corporate Social Perfor Analysing
mance', Colby, M. Academy E.: 1990, ofManagement 'Environmental Review 20, 92-117. and Management

Agle, B. R., R. K. MitcheU and J. A. Sonnenfeld: 1999, 'Who Matters to CEOs? An Investigation of Stake holder Attributes and SaHence, Corporate Perfor
mance, CEOs Values', Academy ofManagement Journal

42, 507-525.
Aristotle: 348 B.C. 'Ethics', inj. Barnes (ed.), The Com

Press, plete Works of Aristotle (Princeton University Princeton, 1988). Bansal, P. and K. Roth: 2000, 'Why Companies Go Green: A Model of Ecological Responsiveness', Academy of Management Review 43, 717-736. BeU, W.: 1997, Foundations of Futures Studies. Human Sci ence New Era. Volume 2. Values, Objectivity andGood for a Society (Transaction, New Brunswick and London). Morals Bentham, J.: 1789, An Introduction to thePrinciples of and Legislation (eds. by J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart) (Athlone Press, London, 1970).
Bradford, of J. L. and D. E. Garrett: 1995, 'The Effectiveness to Accusa Corporate Communicative Responses

Evolution of Paradigms', World Development. Bank Discussion PapersNo 80 (World Bank, New York). Crockett, C: 2005, 'The Cultural Paradigm of Virtue', Journal of Business Ethics 62, 191-208.
Desjardins, J.: 1998, 'Corporate Environmental Respon

The

sibiUty', Journal of Business Ethics 17, 825-838. Donaldson, T.: 1996, 'Values and Tension: Ethics Away from Home', Harvard Business Review 74(5), 48-58. - How Business Eden, S.: 1999, 'We Have the Facts in the Environmental Debate', Legitimacy Environment and Planning A 31, 1295-1309. Feldman, S. P.: 2003, 'Weak Spots in Business Ethics: A Psycho-Analytic and Mem Study of Competition ory in "Death of a Salesman^'^owmd/ of Business Ethics 44, 391-404.
F.: 2005, Figge, ment. From 'Value-Based Environmental Environmental Shareholder Manage Value to

Claims

tions of Unethical 14, 875-892.

Brown, A. D.: 1997,

Behaviour', Journal of Business Ethics

'Narcissism, Identity and Legiti

Environmental
Environment 12,

Option Value', Business Strategy and the

19-30.

macy', Academy of Management Review 22, 643-686.

Brown, A. D. and K. Starkey: 2000, 'Organizational

Fineman,
Fineman, by zation

S.: 1996,
S.: and 1998,

Identity and Learning: A Psycho-Dynamic

tive', Buddha: Academy around ofManagement 540?480 B.C., Review 25, Dhammapada,

Perspec
trans,

Greening',

'Emotional Subtexts in Corporate Organizational Studies 17, 479-500.

'The Natural in M. Environment, Parker (ed.), Organi Ethics and Ethics',

102-120.

J. Mascaro
Cafaro, Toward mental Cameron, P.: an Ethics K.,

(Penguin Books,
2001, 'Thoreau, Environmental 22, 3-17.

London,
Leopold, Virtue

1973).
and Ethics', Carson: Environ

Organizations (Sage, London), pp. 238-252. Frederick, W. C: 1986, 'Toward CSR3: Why Ethical is in Corpo Analysis Indispensable and Unavoidable rate Affairs', California Management Review 28(2), 126
144.

J. E. Dutton

and R.

E. Quinn

(eds.):

2003,

Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of aNew Discipline (Berrett and Koehler, San Francisco).
CarroU, Model A. B.: 1979, 'A Three-Dimensional Social 4, 497?506. Performance', Conceptual Academy of of Corporate Review Management

Gewirth,
Gladwin,

A.:
T.

1978, Reason
N., J. J. KenneUy

andMorality
and T-S.

(Chicago Uni
Krause: 1995,

versity Press, Chicago). 'Shifting

Implications

Paradigms

for

Sustainable
Theory

Development:
and Research',

for Management

CarroU, A. B.:
Models Strategic

1995,

'Stakeholder Thinking
MoraHty: inj. Nasi A Perspective (ed.),

in Three
with

of Management ImpHcations',

Understanding

Academy of Management Review 20 (October), 874-907. 'The Concept of Corporate 1983, Goodpaster, G: ResponsibiUty', Journal of Business Ethics 2, 1-22.
Hart, the S. L.: Firm', 1995, 'A Natural-Resource-Based of Management View Journal of 37, Academy

Stakeholder Thinking
74. CarroU, A. B.: of 1999,

(Gummerus, Jyvaskyla), pp. 47?

ResponsibiHty: Business and

Evolution

Social 'Corporate a Definitional Construct',

986-1014.
Hart, S. L. and M. B. Mdstein: 2003, 'Creating Sustain

Society 38, 268-295. CarroU, A. B.: 2004,

Stakeholders: emy A ofManagement

able Value', 'Managing EthicaUy with

and Future 18, ChaUenge', Executive 114-120.

Academy
1651, Leviathan,

of Management
or the Matter,

Executive

17,
and

Global
Acad

56-69. Hobbes, T.: Forme,

Present

Chambers,
Environment,

R.

J. H.:

1987,

'Sustainable Livelihoods,
Putting Poor Rural

and Development:

Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill (ed. by R. Tuck) (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

434 Tarja Ketola Hoffman, 'Institutional Evolution and J.: 1999, and the U.S Chemical EnvironmentaHsm Industry', Academy of Management Journal 42, 351?
G. R.: 1999, 'Business, Consumers and Sustainable

A.

Nahapiet,

J.,

L.

Gratton

and

H.

O.

Rocha:

2005,

Change:
371. Iyer,

'Knowledge
the Norm', Nurmi, R.:

and Relationships:
European Management 'Aristotle

When
Review

Cooperation
2(1), 3-14. Scandi

is

1984,

and Management',

navianJournal of Management Studies 1 (August), 65-73.

Nussbaum, Aristotelian M. C: 1993, 'Non-Relative in M. C. Virtues: and An A. Approach', Nussbaum

Living in an Interconnected World: A Multilateral Ecocentric Approach', Journal of Business Ethics 20, 273-288. Kant, I.: 1785, Grundlegung zur metaphysik der sitten (mit ein kooperativer
mann, Frankfurt

Sen (eds.), The Quality ofLife (Oxford University

Press,

kommentar
am Main,

von O. Hoffe)
1999).

(Kloster

Ketola, T.: 2004, 'Eco-Psychological Profiling Model: An OU Company Example', Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 11, 150-166.

Oxford). Nasi, J., S. Nasi, N. PhilUps and S. Zyglidopoulos: of Corporate Social Respon 1997, 'The Evolution siveness: An Exploratory and Study of Finnish
Canadian Forestry Companies', Business and Society -

36, 296-321.
Oppegaard, Integrating K. and M. Ethics Statler: 2005, 'Practical Wisdom and Effectiveness in Organizations',

'A HoHstic Corporate ResponsibiHty in (CR-) Model', European Academy of Management Conference (TUM, Munich). Ketola, T.: 2005b, 'Putting a Corporate ResponsibiHty into Practice', in European Academy of (CR-) Model Ketola, Management Conference (TUM, Munich).
Ketola, T.: 2006a, 'Corporate Psychological Defences:

T.: 2005a,

in European Academy of Management Conference (TUM, Munich).

O'Riordan, T.: 1981, Environmentalism, 2nd rev. edition

(Prion, London). Pearce, D. (ed): 1991, Blueprint 2. Greening

Economy Porter, M. (Earthscan, E.: 1991, London). 'America's Green Strategy',

the World

An OU SpiU Case', Journal of Business Ethics 65, 149 161. to Responsi Ketola, T.: 2006b, 'From CR-Psychopaths ble Corporations: Waking up the Inner Sleeping Beauty of Companies', Corporate Social Responsibility
and Environmental Management 13, 98-107.

Scientific

American April: 96.

Porter, M. E. and C. van der the Linde: 1995, Harvard 'Green and Competitive: Ending Stalemate', Business

Review 73 (September-October),
Purser, R. E., C. Park and A. Montuori: Toward Academy Irrationality Anthropocentrism: tion Paradigm?',

120-134.
1995, 'Limits Organiza Review 20, to

Kets de Vries, M.
Perspectives on

F. R.:
Individual

2001, Struggling with theDemon:

and Organizational

an Ecocentric of Management

(Psychosocial Press, Madison). Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and D. MiUer:

Organization (Jossey-Bass, San

1984, The Neurotic

and London).

1053-1089. Rawls,
Press, Rhee,

Francisco

J.: 1971, The Theory ofJustice (Oxford University

Oxford). S.-K. and S.-Y. Lee: 2003, 'Dynamic Change of and 12,

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. and D. MiUer: 1991, 'Leadership Cultures: The Shaping of Styles and Organizational
Neurotic (ed.), Organizations', Organizations on in M. the Couch: and F. R. Clinical Kets de Vries on San Perspectives

Corporate Reality', 175-190. Robertson, C.

Environmental Business Strategy

Strategy: and

Rhetoric

the Environment

Organisational Francisco), Khera, I. P.: pp. 2001,

Behaviour 243?263. 'Business

Change

(Jossey-Bass,

J.

and W.

F. Crittenden:

2003,

'Mapping

Ethics

East

vs. West:

Myths

Moral
national Roome,

Pfulosophies:
Finns', N.: 2006,

Strategic
'Company

ImpUcations for Multi

Journal 24, for 385?392. Corporate Strategies

and ReaHties', Journal of Business Ethics 30, 29-39. Koehn, D.: 1999, 'What Can Eastern PhUosophy Teach Us About Business Ethics?', Journal of Business Ethics
19, 71-79.

Strategic Management

in an Era and Sustainability Social Responsibility in Nordic Academy of of Disjointed-GlobaUsation',

Management Conference, Umea, Sweden, 16-18

Lao Tzu: around 571-480 B.C., Dao dejing (eds. by G.-F. Feng and J. EngHsh) (Randon House, London, 1972).
van Marrewijk, M. : 2003, 'Concepts and Definitions of

March Sen, A.:

Justice',

2006, Conference Proceedings: http://www.usbe, 1995,

in M.

umu.se/nff2006.

CSR
105.

and Corporate SustainabiHty: Between Agency and Communion', Journal of Business Ethics 44, 95 (Oxford
Acad

'Gender
Nussbaum

Inequality
and J. Glover

and Theories
(eds.), Women,

of

Culture andDevelopment: A Study ofHuman Capabilities

(Clarendon Shrivastava, P.: Press, Oxford). 'The Role of Corporations in 1995,

MiU, J. S.: 1861, Utilitarianism (ed. by R. Crisp) 1998). University Press, Oxford,
MiUer, emy D.: 1993, 'The Architecture Review 18, of 116-138. Simplicity', ofManagement

Achieving
agement

Ecological
20,

Sustainability', Academy ofMan

Review

936-960.

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Holistic

Corporate Responsibility Model 435 Werhane, 'Business Ethics and the Origins of and Ethics in Contemporary CapitaUsm: Economics theWork of Adam Smith and Hebert Spencer', Journal P. H.: 2000,

1999, 'Business Ethics and Virtue', in Solomon, R. C: R. E. Frederick (ed.), A Companion to Business Ethics (BlackweU PubHcations, Oxford). 2003, Ethics and Excellence (Oxford Solomon, R. C: University Press, Oxford), de Spinoza, B.: 1677, Ethics. On the Correction of the Understanding (Dent, London, 1959).
Suchman, and M. C: 1995, 'Managing Legitimacy: Academy Strategic Institutional Approaches', of Management

of Business Ethics 24, 185-198. D. and M. Wheeler, SiUanpaa: 1997, Stakeholder Corporation. Blueprint for Maximizing Stakeholder Value
(Pitman, London).

Review 20, 571-610. Swajkowski, E.: 1992, Misconduct',

Takala, ership T.: 1999,

'Accounting for Organizational Journal of Business Ethics 11, 401-411.

'Ownership, ResponsibUity and Lead Journal Perspective', International

Winjberg, N. M.: 2000, 'Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and PoUtics', Journal of Business Ethics 25, 329-342. D. J.: 1991, 'Corporate Social Performance Wood,
Revisited', 718. Academy of Management Review 16, 691

A Historical

of Social Economics 26, 742-752.

Wartick, of S. L. and P. L. Cochran: Performance 1985, 'The Model', Evolution Academy the Corporate Social

and Vos, J. F. J.: 2003, 'Corporate Social Responsibdity the Identification of Stakeholders', Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 10, 141?
152.

Management Review 10, 758-769. of WCED: 1987, Our Common Future, Report
Conference on the Environment and

on the World
Development

von Wright, G H.: 1977, The Varieties of Goodness, and reprint. (Thoemmes Press, originaUy: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1963). Department P.O. Box 100, E-mail: of Production,

(Oxford University
Welford, R.: 1995,

Press, Oxford).
Strategy and Sustainable

Environmental

Development. The Corporate Strategyfor the 21st Century (Routledge, London and New York). Welford, Social 2002, 'Globalization, Corporate and Human Rights', Corporate Social Responsibility
Responsibility and Environmental Management 9, 1-7.

University of Vaasa, 65100 Vaasa, Finland tarja.ketola@uwasa.fi

R.:

This content downloaded from 78.111.165.165 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:27:09 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions