Four ways of addressing pluralism for CSR

M. Nielsen, Claus Strue Frederiksen
{"title":"Four ways of addressing pluralism for CSR","authors":"M. Nielsen, Claus Strue Frederiksen","doi":"10.1504/IJSEI.2013.057022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking its cue from a presentation and discussion of two corporate social responsibility e-learning tools which emphasises ethical awareness and deliberation, this article discusses pluralism and four ways of addressing it with an eye to decision procedures, especially as concerns CSR policies. First, direct pluralism, understood as a hybrid between various traditional ethical theories, and different versions of ethical relativism, including a new version the authors call stakeholder relativism, is discussed and rejected as plausible ways of addressing pluralism. After this, so-called ‘two-level utilitarianism’ is presented as an alternative decision strategy. Then, taking into account recent trends in philosophy, the paper turns to discuss one of the most influential attempts to address pluralism, namely John Rawls’ (et al.) deontological proceduralism. We argue that both two-level utilitarianism and deontological proceduralism can serve as justifiable theoretical backgrounds for CSR and decision making in the light of pluralism.","PeriodicalId":187252,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSEI.2013.057022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Taking its cue from a presentation and discussion of two corporate social responsibility e-learning tools which emphasises ethical awareness and deliberation, this article discusses pluralism and four ways of addressing it with an eye to decision procedures, especially as concerns CSR policies. First, direct pluralism, understood as a hybrid between various traditional ethical theories, and different versions of ethical relativism, including a new version the authors call stakeholder relativism, is discussed and rejected as plausible ways of addressing pluralism. After this, so-called ‘two-level utilitarianism’ is presented as an alternative decision strategy. Then, taking into account recent trends in philosophy, the paper turns to discuss one of the most influential attempts to address pluralism, namely John Rawls’ (et al.) deontological proceduralism. We argue that both two-level utilitarianism and deontological proceduralism can serve as justifiable theoretical backgrounds for CSR and decision making in the light of pluralism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决企业社会责任多元化的四种方式
本文以两种强调道德意识和深思熟虑的企业社会责任电子学习工具的演示和讨论为灵感,讨论了多元化和四种解决决策程序的方法,特别是在企业社会责任政策方面。首先,直接多元主义被理解为各种传统伦理理论和不同版本的伦理相对主义的混合体,包括作者称为利益相关者相对主义的新版本,作为解决多元主义的可行方法进行了讨论和拒绝。在此之后,所谓的“两级功利主义”作为另一种决策策略被提出。然后,考虑到哲学的最新趋势,本文转而讨论解决多元主义的最具影响力的尝试之一,即约翰·罗尔斯(等人)的义务论程序主义。我们认为,在多元主义的视野下,双层功利主义和义务论程序主义都可以作为企业社会责任和决策的理论背景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Corporate social responsibility typology: the influence of cross-cultural dimensions Competencies for social entrepreneurs in emerging economies: evidence from India Social ventures: exploring entrepreneurial exit strategies with a structuration lens The voice of the constituent: participatory development and opportunity identification in social entrepreneurship Mobilising money for social change: the advantage of having a business model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1