Re-Imagining Business Agency through Multi-Agent Cross-Sector Coalitions: Integrating CSR Frameworks.

IF 1 Q4 MANAGEMENT Philosophy of Management Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-11-17 DOI:10.1007/s40926-021-00180-2
Philipp Dorstewitz, David Lal
{"title":"Re-Imagining Business Agency through Multi-Agent Cross-Sector Coalitions: Integrating CSR Frameworks.","authors":"Philipp Dorstewitz,&nbsp;David Lal","doi":"10.1007/s40926-021-00180-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This theoretical paper takes an agency-theoretic approach to questions of corporate social responsibility (CSR). A comparison of various extant frameworks focusses on how CSR agency emerges in complex multi-agent and multi-sector stakeholder networks. The discussion considers the respective capabilities and relevance of these frameworks - culminating in an integrative CSR practice model. A short literature review of the evolution of CSR since the 1950's provides the backdrop for understanding multi-agent cross-sectoral stakeholder coalitions as a strategic determinant of today's organizational behavior. The paper turns to Werhane's coupling of moral imagination and systems thinking and forging stakeholder coalitions in problem contexts that were traditionally deemed intractable by for-profit organizations. However, it identifies the problem that the systems approach treats macro-agents (organizations, stakeholders) as given (\"black-boxed\") and shies away from more radically re-imagining the possibilities of reassembling agency from the bottom up. Actor Network Theory (ANT) provides such a method, which strictly commits to treating organizational behavior as a product of technological, human and environmental micro-processes. ANT, however, is lacking a genuine moral deliberative stance in designing complex CSR coalitions. In an attempt to capitalize on the respective strengths of these frameworks (Systems thinking and ANT) the paper tends to a recent iterative series of \"situational transactive\" models that are rooted in the US pragmatist tradition and seek to capture intelligent planning processes in complex problematic contexts. The contribution proposes a new CSR practice model, which assigns specific roles to the theoretical contributions of ANT, system thinking and pragmatism in complex deliberation processes. This model can be industry-tested in a future study.</p>","PeriodicalId":54136,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8598216/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00180-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/11/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This theoretical paper takes an agency-theoretic approach to questions of corporate social responsibility (CSR). A comparison of various extant frameworks focusses on how CSR agency emerges in complex multi-agent and multi-sector stakeholder networks. The discussion considers the respective capabilities and relevance of these frameworks - culminating in an integrative CSR practice model. A short literature review of the evolution of CSR since the 1950's provides the backdrop for understanding multi-agent cross-sectoral stakeholder coalitions as a strategic determinant of today's organizational behavior. The paper turns to Werhane's coupling of moral imagination and systems thinking and forging stakeholder coalitions in problem contexts that were traditionally deemed intractable by for-profit organizations. However, it identifies the problem that the systems approach treats macro-agents (organizations, stakeholders) as given ("black-boxed") and shies away from more radically re-imagining the possibilities of reassembling agency from the bottom up. Actor Network Theory (ANT) provides such a method, which strictly commits to treating organizational behavior as a product of technological, human and environmental micro-processes. ANT, however, is lacking a genuine moral deliberative stance in designing complex CSR coalitions. In an attempt to capitalize on the respective strengths of these frameworks (Systems thinking and ANT) the paper tends to a recent iterative series of "situational transactive" models that are rooted in the US pragmatist tradition and seek to capture intelligent planning processes in complex problematic contexts. The contribution proposes a new CSR practice model, which assigns specific roles to the theoretical contributions of ANT, system thinking and pragmatism in complex deliberation processes. This model can be industry-tested in a future study.

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
通过多代理跨部门联盟重新构想商业代理:整合企业社会责任框架。
本文采用代理理论的方法研究企业社会责任问题。对各种现有框架的比较侧重于企业社会责任代理如何在复杂的多代理和多部门利益相关者网络中出现。讨论考虑了这些框架各自的能力和相关性,最终形成了一个综合的企业社会责任实践模型。对20世纪50年代以来企业社会责任演变的简短文献回顾为理解多主体跨部门利益相关者联盟作为当今组织行为的战略决定因素提供了背景。这篇论文转向了Werhane将道德想象和系统思考结合起来,并在营利性组织传统上认为难以解决的问题背景下建立利益相关者联盟的观点。然而,它指出了一个问题,即系统方法将宏观代理(组织、利益相关者)视为给定的(“黑盒”),并且回避了更彻底地重新想象自下而上重组代理的可能性。行动者网络理论(ANT)提供了这样一种方法,它严格致力于将组织行为视为技术、人和环境微过程的产物。然而,在设计复杂的企业社会责任联盟时,蚂蚁金服缺乏真正的道德审慎立场。为了利用这些框架(系统思维和ANT)各自的优势,本文倾向于最近一系列的“情境交互”模型,这些模型植根于美国实用主义传统,旨在捕捉复杂问题背景下的智能规划过程。该贡献提出了一个新的企业社会责任实践模型,该模型为ANT、系统思维和实用主义在复杂审议过程中的理论贡献赋予了特定的角色。该模型可以在未来的研究中进行行业测试。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Philosophy of Management addresses all aspects of the philosophical foundations of management in theory and practice, including business ethics, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics and politics.  The application of philosophical disciplines to issues facing managers are increasingly recognized to include organizational purpose, performance measurement, the status of ethics, employee privacy, and limitations on the right to manage. Philosophy of Management is an independent, refereed forum that focuses on these central philosophical issues of management in theory and practice. The journal is open to contributions from all philosophical schools and traditions.  Since 2001 the journal has published three issues per year, each focused on a particular topic. Published contributors include René ten Bos, Ghislain Deslandes, Juan Fontrodona, Michelle Greenwood, Jeremy Moon, Geoff Moore, Duncan Pritchard, and Duane Windsor. This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure.
期刊最新文献
How do you find the Crack? A Report on a ‘Philosophical Methods’ Workshop Freedom in Business: Elizabeth Anderson, Adam Smith, and the Effects of Dominance in Business Organizational Resilience through the Philosophical Lens of Aristotelian and Heraclitean Philosophy Technological Evolution and Cooperative Identity: A Genealogical Analysis using Simondon's Cybernetic Process Philosophy “You Can’t Say That”: A Normative Account of Speech Rights and Limits in Organizations
×
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