Content uploaded by Josep M. Lozano
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Josep M. Lozano
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 46
1. Introduction: from awareness to project
When we talk about organizational ethics (hence-
forth OE) we are referring to the set of values that
identify an organization, from within (or, to put
another way, how those working in the organiza-
tion understand it) as well as from without (the
perception of the organization by those who have
dealings with it).
Such a set of values can be considered in a broad
sense (that is, the set of values structuring the orga-
nization and its practices, be they instrumental or
final values, positive or negative) or in a stricter
sense (where we shall refer only to those values that
express the vision, the raison d’être and the com-
mitments of the organization, and that are linked to
their corporate and moral identity). Generalizing, we
could say that in the first case we would find those
organizations that ask themselves how to make
progress “in search of excellence”;1in the second,
those organizations that ask themselves “what is
necessary for corporate moral excellence?”2
This means that when speaking of OE, one can
speak from various perspectives:
• One can focus on the practices: from this per-
spective what is relevant is to identify the val-
ues which in fact structure organizational prac-
tices. That is, basically to become aware.
• One can focus on formal statements: from this
perspective what is relevant is to elaborate the
discourse which is proposed as a value refer-
ence of the organization. That basically
involves formal declarations or statements.
• One can focus on the processes: relevant to
OE from this perspective are organizational
learning processes which permit continual re-
elaboration and reinterpretation of the rela-
tionship between statements and practices.
That is, basically to narrate and institutionaize.
An Approach to Organizational Ethics
∗
Josep M. Lozano
ABSTRACT
Great importance has recently been given in studies on management to subjects such as values or organizational cul-
tures. The fact that on dealing with these questions there are many terminological coincidences with ethics has meant
that the discourse on values or organizational culture has often automatically been identified with organizational ethics.
This paper questions this identification, proposing an approach to what should be understood by organizational ethics
(OE). Three ideas support this approach: (1) an understanding of OE from a process and learning approach, (2) a pre-
sentation of 10 components that make up a reflective OE, and (3) an understanding of how values are understood in
OE, underlining four dimensions: dynamic, practical, dialogical, and committed. The paper concludes by proposing that
the development of OE should be linked to the development of an organizational citizenship.
KEYWORDS
Corporate Culture; Learning; Organizational Citizenship; Management and Values
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Josep M. Lozano. ESADE Business School, Av. Pedralbes, 60-62, 08034 Barcelona (Spain). E-mail: lozano@esade.edu
* This research was carried out in ESADE
’
s Institute for the Individual, Corporations and Society (IPES), wich is sponsored
by the Caixa Sabadell Foundation.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 47
• One can focus on the project, stressing what,
from this perspective, is relevant to innovation
and the creation of corporate identity. Both
should be seen as an expression of the contri-
bution that an organization makes to society
insofar as it is, simultaneously, economic actor
and social actor. That is, basically to build and
to institutionalize.
We should not understand these four perspectives
as being mutually exclusive – quite the opposite.
However, we should take into account their dif-
ferent ‘accents’ and that they can form an evolu-
tionary sequence. At any rate, these ‘accents’
should make us aware of the fact that when we
speak of OE we are not referring to a standardized
concept but to an option concerning our very
understanding of OE. In our case, we adopt a per-
spective that conceives of OE as an opportunity
for learning and innovation. This also means that
we position ourselves within what we termed ear-
lier a stricter view (i.e. one that is not merely
descriptive or instrumental) and which will lead
us on to speak of reflective OE. In other words, it
will go beyond OE as a process of awareness to
one in which OE is understood as a project.
2. Central issue: OE as an opportunity for
learning and innovation
If we talk about OE as an opportunity for learning
and innovation it is because the OE issue does not
exist in a vacuum. Rather it both forms part of
processes of social and organizational change and
is their product.
2.1. Why OE? A context of social change
Over the last few years, there have been substantial
changes in both the discourse on corporations and
society’s expectations regarding corporations. One of
the defining features of these changes consists in see-
ing corporations as simultaneously playing both eco-
nomic and social roles. We could say that a view of
corporations from both market and societal stand-
points has emerged. This change has already materi-
alized in various initiatives such as institutional pro-
posals, the creation of new methodologies for audit-
ing or accountability, the launching of new indexes
and rankings, the development of new investment
tools, or social campaigns against corporate actions
perceived as unacceptable. Symptomatic of this sea
change is the proposal for “Promoting a European
Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility”
(European Commission Green Paper).
3
This trend is inseparable from the deep transfor-
mations which our economies and societies are
undergoing. To be more precise: we believe that the
debate about a new understanding of the relation-
ships between corporations and society is an intrin-
sic part of these transformations. Beyond the clichés,
terms such as globalization, knowledge society or
network society
4
indicate that the world is the frame
of reference for corporations (regarding actions and
decision-making as well as their interpretation).
They also indicate that knowledge is the key
resource, that such a resource is linked to people and
their learning processes, and the paradigm to under-
standing organizations is not the factory or the hier-
archical bureaucracy any more, but networks.
It should not surprise us then that terms such as
corporate social responsibility, corporate citizen-
ship, accountability, triple bottom line or stake-
holder dialogue have come to occupy a prominent
place on corporate agendas. It should not surprise
us either to see that other social actors have vig-
orously joined the debate on the role corporations
should play in society. Our view is that we stand
at a watershed and that we may need to radically
rethink the role of corporations in society.
This is so because of the framework of globaliza-
tion:
a) companies become co-responsible for gover-
nance
b) companies must be aware of all the dimensions
of their relationship networks
c) the way companies act creates social capital
and shapes organizational leadership
d) companies should build up their legitimacy in
the eyes of society
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 48
In this context, OE is the name we give to the way
in which each organization responds through prac-
tice to the question about how these complex struc-
tures and new corporate responsibilities and social
demands should be acknowledged and managed.
2.2. Why OE? A context of corporate and
professional changes
In our opinion, it is important to stress that a series
of questions have emerged from the process of
redefining the role of corporations in society – issues
which go beyond the impact on or contribution of
the corporation to society. If this were not so, we
would simply be speaking about Corporate Social
Responsibility using different words. But precisely
because the understanding of the role of corpora-
tions in society is changing, firms are asking them-
selves what building a corporate identity actually
means in a swiftly changing world. Some profes-
sionals are beginning to wonder how their personal
view of life and corporate projects can be squared
with their professional and personal integrity on the
one hand and the consistency between their personal
projects and professional and corporate projects on
the other. For their part, corporations are wondering
how they can structure their organizations and fos-
ter corporate identity. Their task is made harder by
greater job mobility of professionals, multicultural-
ism and trans-national operations. Put baldly, firms
are asking themselves to what extent a corporate
project can sustain and express a shared commit-
ment yet be compatible with rapid change and flex-
ibility. Firms dealing with social actors increasingly
have to develop the capacity to generate a discourse
and to explain their activities and socially legitimize
them. This set of demands, related to the processes
of construction of professional and corporate iden-
tities, has converged in the growing importance
given to the formulation of corporate values and to
finding management models and styles based explic-
itly on the commitment to fundamental values.5
From this point of view, the proposal is that
organizations should be able to be creative and
innovative not only with regard to technologies
and processes but also with regard to establishing
values for fuelling corporate practices and identi-
fying them. Here then, we are not speaking so
much of responsibility as of creativity. One can
say that we are considering the organization as a
learning and ethical space where one can develop
personal and corporate values. The task is thus to
provide an axiological competence which enables
people and organizations to move within chang-
ing social and cultural contexts characterized by
the lack of a fixed set of values.
In this context, OE is the name we give to
assuming organizations’ need to create direction,
purpose and meaning. They should not simply
limit themselves to speaking of their organiza-
tional culture but also actively work on building
their value-based identities.
2.3. What is the OE horizon?
Finally one should note that when one takes OE seri-
ously as an opportunity for learning and innovation,
new questions emerge which might constitute OE’s
real central issue. From our point of view, serious
development of OE could lead companies “to pay
attention to corporate existential matters such as:
‘Who are we?’, ‘What do we stand for?’, ‘What are
our core values?’, ‘How should we reflect upon our
identity and responsibilities?’, ‘How should we
measure, evaluate and report on our identity, devel-
opment and success?’6In other words, in the final
analysis the search for OE is inseparable from the
question ‘How can and do corporations contribute to
constructing the good society?’7
Let us recall that Morgan (1986) spoke of “images
of the organization.” He showed us how our com-
prehension of organizations often rested on metaphors
and images that structured our way of thinking about
them and seeing them and that these images also
structured our actions and decisions. We should go
further. We should never forget that any model of
organization and any model of management rests on
an anthropological model. These in turn shape human
profiles which fit in with the model’s conceptions of
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 49
organization and management.
8
Thus, what makes it
possible for us to understand and manage an organi-
zation is not only the clear conscience of its aim and
its strategy, but also the acknowledgement of the
anthropological model that it has consciously or
unconsciously assumed. This issue was already raised
explicitly some time ago in the world of management
(whether there has been much enthusiasm in address-
ing it is another question). Read, for example, what
Chester Barnard wrote:
I have found it is impossible to go far in the study of
organizations or of the behaviour of people in relation
to them without being confronted with a few questions
which can be simply stated. For example: What is an
individual? What do we mean by a person? To what
extent do people have a power of choice or free will?
The temptation is to avoid such difficult questions,
leaving them to the philosophers and scientists who
still debate them after centuries. It quickly appears,
however, that even if we avoid answering such ques-
tions definitely, we cannot evade them. We answer
them implicitly in whatever we say about human
behaviour; and, what is more important, all sorts of
people, and leaders and executives, act on the basis of
fundamental assumptions and attitudes regarding them,
although these people are rarely conscious that they
are doing so.9
In the end, as we delve deeper into the meaning of OE,
we may end up considering that OE’s central issue
concerns recognition within the corporate sphere that
firms, in pursuing their own ends, ultimately promote
and foster a model of the individual and of society.
3. The state of the art: from culture to identity
3.1. Organizational culture or organizational
ethics?10
Understanding organizations from the cultural
point of view amounted to a radical shift in the
way of analyzing and managing them. Morgan
pointed out that the power of understanding
organizations as cultures mainly hinges on two
aspects.11 First, it pays attention to the symbolic
— and even magical — meaning of many aspects
of the organization’s life which are left unex-
plained from a rational perspective. Second, it
stresses that an organization also depends on a sys-
tem of shared meanings and on interpretation
schemes that create and recreate these meanings.
Pettigrew pointed out the importance of analyzing
organizations with concepts stemming from
anthropology and sociology:
These concepts are directly relevant to the concern
in the field of organizational behaviour as to how
purpose, commitment, and order are created in the
early life of an organization. In the context of the
action frame of reference for the study of organiza-
tions, those concepts reveal man as a creator of sym-
bols, languages, beliefs, visions, ideologies, and
myths, in effect, man as a creator of meaning.12
If this is true, it seems reasonable to conclude that
company development involves (re)creating the
meaning which shapes the company.
As a result, the issue of whether to treat culture
as an organizational variable or simply as a useful
metaphor is one which has gained considerable the-
oretical and practical importance. This alternative
can be thrown into sharp relief by asking whether
organizations have a culture or are culture.13 Prob-
ably we should not think of these alternatives as
mutually exclusive. Organizational cultures14 are
both an inheritance and a social construction15 so
that (from a management perspective) we should
neither consider them as something unchanging and
imposed upon us nor as a reality that we can freely
manipulate. This should lead us to a consideration
along the lines of what Smircich expresses when he
points out that organizational culture should be
taken as “a particular structure of knowledge for
knowing and acting. (…) an organizational culture
may be represented as a ‘master contract’ that
includes the organization’s self-image, as well as
constitutive and regulative rules that organize
beliefs and actions in light of the image.”16
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 50
At this point, it was probably Schein who
offered an approach allowing us to understand bet-
ter how to deal with OE. Schein considered that
Organizational culture is the pattern of basic
assumptions that a given group has invented, dis-
covered, or developed in learning to cope with its
problems of external adaptation and internal inte-
gration, and that have worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and
feel in relation to those problems.17
In addition, Schein proposed a scheme which dis-
tinguishes three levels of culture, together with
their interactions (FIGURE 1).18
This scheme reveals at least two things: (1) that it
is not always easy to escape the temptation to
reduce the development of an organizational cul-
ture (and, eventually, of an OE) to the level of
artefacts and creations; and (2) that values play a
crucial role in this whole process. It is for this rea-
son that Gagliardi argued that the maintenance of
a corporation’s cultural identity through paying
special attention to values constituted one of the
most important management tasks.19 We think that
this should always be seen as a learning process
from which the values of the corporation as well
as the underlying assumptions are created,
assumed, transmitted, and eventually also criti-
cized and transformed. We should not forget, how-
ever, that this presupposes, to put it in Schein’s
terms, developing within organizations (and in the
people who are part of it) a capacity to re-elabo-
rate artefacts and creations, as well as values and
basic assumptions.
Here is where the risk of ambiguity mentioned
earlier arises. Is talking about organizational culture
the same as talking about OE? In a broad sense —
with a merely descriptive approach — it might be,
to the extent that some elements of this culture
reflect some kind of organizational ethos. In a strict
sense — with a basically constructive approach —
it is not necessarily the same.20 In other words, it is
true that developing an organizational culture
involves aspects of organizational life which can be
understood from an ethical standpoint. But this does
not mean that ethical approaches are explicitly
stated.21 Put another way, even if seeing organiza-
tions as cultures involves using terms and concepts
that are common to ethics, this should not lead us
uncritically to the conclusion that an OE is being
explicitly developed.22
What really makes sense is “a cultural per-
spective on changing and developing organiza-
tional ethics”,23 where the accent is precisely on
OE and on the willingness to turn it into a pro-
ject for corporate identity. This disposition helps
one start the search for the tools needed to
develop this project.
In developing a moral culture a corporation must for-
mulate clear ethical strategies and structures, taking
into account opportunities and risks, resources and
competencies, personal values and preferences, and
economic and social responsibilities. Such a corporate
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 51
thinking process might include ethical codification,
management and worker ethical training programs,
broad-based board representation, internal ethical
audits, clear and open avenues for information flow to
provide for ongoing communication and consultation
at all levels, and the hiring and directing of top cor-
porate officers to develop corporate ethical policies
and management strategies for the carrying out of such
policies. Moves such as these and others will enable
the corporation to systematically reflect upon the moral
data of which it becomes aware in an effort to arrive
at a moral position for decision-making.24
The issue is then to go from a broad, passive view
(recognizing what the corporate values are and see
how we take them into account, given that there is
no organization without an organizational culture)
to a stricter, ethically committed view (to shape
the values that express the organizational project
and give it internal and external legitimacy). This
involves going beyond mere acknowledgement of
culture to the construction of identity. The closer
we get to the issue of corporate identity, the more
we can talk about OE properly.
3.2. Two related issues: stakeholder approach
and leadership
The itinerary from recognition to construction is
formally very similar to that followed by issues
like relationships with stakeholders and the refor-
mulation of leadership.25
Just as reflections about OE begin with the
realization that there is no organization without
organizational culture, the debate about the stake-
holder corporation begins with the recognition of
the power that organizations currently have in our
world.26 The great majority of contemporary
debates on the role of corporations in society
begin, explicitly or not, with this realization. This
becomes evident when the debate is framed in an
analysis of the processes of globalization. As Don-
aldson & Preston emphasize,27 we can approach
the theory of stakeholders from a descriptive, an
instrumental or a normative perspective.28 From
an analytical point of view, to draw a map of
stakeholders is nothing more than a descriptive
exercise in which one should determine the net-
work of relationships in which the organization is
immersed. To the extent that it moves from a
descriptive approach to a normative one the stake-
holder theory allows each organization to re-elab-
orate its relationships of power and influence in
the light of its responsibilities. However, this
means that each organization has to decide which
interests it takes into consideration, what the
nature or hierarchy of those interests is, and
whether a stakeholder is considered simply as
someone who can affect or can be affected by the
organization, or whether he is recognized as a
valid interlocutor. Thus, just as there is a route
from organizational culture to OE, there is a sim-
ilar route from stakeholder analysis to (for exam-
ple) a view of “stakeholder theory by recognizing
stakeholders as partners who create both economic
and social value through collaborative problem-
solving.”29
Similarly, leadership cannot be reduced to the
view of a single person and his coterie. It is not
only a question of mobilizing people and giving
some meaning to their action. It is still less one of
surrendering responsibility and putting it in the
hands of the leader.
Organizational practices are situated within a given
climate, interpreted in a discourse of sense making,
rooted in an organizational culture, and shaped by
processes of decision taking which are themselves part
of a corpus of practice. However, there is one further
element which needs to be added to this account. For
the moral agent, whether individual or collective, it is
purpose which gives action focus and direction, so that
in order to give this conceptual framework a definitive
ethical ‘thrust’ we need an account of corporate pur-
pose which is more comprehensive and reflective than
strategic means-ends rationality.30
It is this need for corporate purpose that makes us
see the leader as something more than a simple
manager or administrator of corporate values.31
As Heifetz stressed, leadership can be thought of
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 52
as the capacity to trigger the emergence of those
values that make our purposes worthwhile.32 Per-
haps leaders are those who do not evade the ques-
tion of whether a change of habits, attitudes or val-
ues is required. A leader’s most important role
could be to state this issue clearly and tackle it
boldly and creatively. Perhaps leaders are those
individuals who are able to make us aware of the
values present in our options and decisions.33
What we are proposing can be said to be a reflective
perspective. It is existential or philosophical in nature
and, in comparison with the pragmatic perspective,
employs a broader repertoire of measures of corporate
success and focuses on organizational identity rather
than image. It is reflective rather than communicative
in nature and is more concerned with the inherent
character of the organization rather than its outward
appearance. This perspective does not receive nearly
as much conscious leadership attention as the prag-
matic perspective. Nevertheless, its focus on ‘what
is’ and ‘what should be’ — rather than on ‘what
appears to be’ — is rapidly becoming central to the
theory and practice of leadership.
34
Thus, we can see that the itinerary which led us to
conceive, first, an OE with a more descriptive char-
acter and then an OE with a more pragmatic char-
acter finally takes us towards a more reflective OE
which (at least from a formal viewpoint) is not so
very different from the itineraries followed by the
reflection on the stakeholder approach and on lead-
ership. But we should also realize that OE cannot
be conceived independently from the assumption of
the stakeholder approach and corporate social
responsibility (outwards35) or from processes of per-
sonal transformation and development (inwards). It
is precisely within this framework that we can start
talking meaningfully about reflective OE.
3.3. OE should be learning-oriented and
process-oriented
Reflective OE shapes and expresses corporate iden-
tity. But in our world, identity is not a snapshot of
who we are but a chart. However, we will focus
here on the organizational perspective.36 In the con-
text of moral pluralism, which is a trait of modern
societies, this means that the ethical reference can-
not be injected into the organizations from the out-
side or imposed by decree from the highest levels
within. Instead, OE should be understood as a
shared value horizon37 that facilitates transforma-
tion and orients organizational practices, creating
significant ethical meanings at the same time. An
organizational process that integrates ethical dimen-
sions should make it possible to create this shared
value horizon and live within it constantly. Consid-
ering this as a process is tantamount to assuming
that it is not something given from the outset but
something that must be created and constructed,
with all the members or the organizations sharing in
its creation as well as in its construction.38
It is in this context that “we view learning as
the bridge between working and innovating.”39
The innovation we need today does not refer only
to products, services, and processes. We also need
to learn how to innovate in terms of institutions,
values and attitudes. In the emergent knowledge
society, organizations will have to learn to build
their own legitimacy (since it will be given to them
from outside), and will have to decide how they
want to be recognized. And this is a question
clearly linked to that of identity: an identity, which
is learning-oriented and process-oriented. “The
pragmatic ‘goods’ for business organizations are
defined in terms of the ‘goods’ of effectiveness
and performance but there are also ethical ‘goods’
in terms of what serves corporate purpose, and
moral ‘goods’ in the sense of just decisions. (…)
It is for this reason that a theory of organizational
ethics requires both substantive and procedural
elements”.40 That is, OE needs to rely simultane-
ously on contents and on processes: process
expressing contents and context giving meaning to
processes.
It is very important to recall that OE is some-
thing eminently practical. When we speak of OE,
we certainly speak of identity but we do so
in order to name organizational practices and
projects.41 In this respect, Nonaka and Konno’s
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 53
Figure 2:The creation of knowledge as a process between tacit and explicit knowledge.
contribution provides clarification.42 They distin-
guish between two types of knowledge: explicit
and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be
expressed in words and numbers and it is usually
easily and quickly transmitted in a formal and sys-
tematic way. Tacit knowledge is highly personal
and hard to formalize. Tacit knowledge is deeply
rooted in an individual’s actions and experience as
well as his ideals, values and emotions. Notice
that “there are two dimensions of tacit knowl-
edge. The first is the technical dimension, which
encompasses the kind of informal personal skills
or crafts often referred to as ‘know-how’. The
second is the cognitive dimension. It consists of
beliefs, ideals, values, schemata, and mental
models which are deeply ingrained in us and
which we often take for granted. While difficult
to articulate, this cognitive dimension of tacit
knowledge shapes the way we perceive the
world”.43 The creation of knowledge is thus a
continuous process of interaction between tacit
and explicit knowledge.
This process (FIGURE 2) involves a never-end-
ing sequence of socialization (sharing tacit knowl-
edge between individuals through physical prox-
imity); externalization (the expression of tacit
knowledge and its translation into comprehensive
forms that can be understood by others); combi-
nation (the conversion of explicit knowledge into
more complex sets of explicit knowledge, which
entails communication, diffusion and systematiza-
tion of knowledge); and internalization (the
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 54
conversion of explicit knowledge into the organi-
zation’s tacit knowledge).44
We could assert that reflective OE can be per-
fectly understood from this sequence. From our
perspective, what is specific to reflective OE is
consideration of this process (socialization, exter-
nalization, combination and internalizations) by
focusing on values and corporate identity. We can
make this assertion in these terms, on the one
hand, because in this process values refer back to
practices and stem from them and hence the two
are inextricably linked; and, on the other hand,
because values bring into play our basic assump-
tions about the human condition and our concep-
tions concerning individuals and society. Reflec-
tive OE is therefore the never-ending process of
translating the organization’s values from explicit
to tacit and from tacit to explicit. It is a process
that allows us to critically draw up the organiza-
tional project we want to share and to which we
want to commit ourselves. In this sense we fully
assume the following view, put forward in a
slightly different context:
At the heart of this model is the dynamic interaction of
action — having an experience — and reflection that
helps a person interpret and reinterpret experience. The
quality of reflection is central to how a person makes
meaning of what is occurring. We are often guided in
reflection by internalized social rules, norms, values and
beliefs that have been acquired implicitly and explicitly
through socialization. These internalized perspectives
can distort our interpretation of an experience. To learn
deeply from experience, people must critically reflect
on the assumptions, values and beliefs that shape their
understanding.
45
At the heart of our conception of learning there is
the conviction, confidence and commitment to acti-
vate human potentialities in all their dimensions.46
If we do not want dialogue to merely mean the sum
of monologues, a shallow exchange of ideas or a
sterile discussion but rather the space for the cre-
ation of a shared perspective, we need to insist that
a reflective OE presupposes individuals recogniz-
ing each other in the organizational context as per-
sons and realizing that they need one another to
act. This also means that if individuals are to con-
tribute their capacities and commitments to orga-
nizations, corporate values should not be the object
of submission and reverence but rather connect
with personal values and reflect them in a credible
way: they can only be shared if they can really be
incorporated in an individual’s values. Evidently,
all this does not avoid conflicts and pressures aris-
ing. It should also not lead to everyday cares being
forgotten to endlessly dwell on a discourse on val-
ues. In a reflective OE values are inseparable from
everyday work. Values give a horizon of shared
reference that can generate confidence and trust,
allowing us to live in the present without being
absorbed by it, and can be a powerful stimulus to
innovation.
From the theoretical point of view, we
believe that this approach (which we have called
reflective OE) facilitates the integration between
the organizational perspective and the ethical
perspective.47 This integration is captured by
TABLE 1.48
To the extent that an OE process has reflective
and practical organizational and ethical integration
as its aim, we can truly speak of OE as the step
from corporate culture to corporate identity.
When we are dealing with OE, in what sense
can we talk about examples? It does not mean that
there is a single model for OE. Nor does it mean
that we can bring forth some best practices that
we should follow as the norm. Both aspirations
would contradict what we have said up to this
point. Each organization builds49 its OE according
to its own tradition, its context and its project.
Since this construction is basically a process, it
contains contradictions and ambiguities. Each
organization provides itself with the tools it con-
siders necessary to give shape to its own OE.
4. Reflective OE understood as an approach
Reflective OE is not a solution. It is an approach.
50
We can ask ourselves what traits shape this approach.
We shall confine ourselves here to considering just
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 55
three: first, a theoretical perspective that aims at inte-
grating the ethical and corporate elements,
51
reflected
in Collier’s table above; second, a set of OE struc-
turing components; and third, a way of understanding
the process that structures a reflective OE. Taking
Schein’s diagram (see above), we propose to locate
OE’s focus on the theoretical and practical elabora-
tion of corporate values. We do so because, as already
noted, we consider, first, that we cannot talk about
corporate values without linking these values with
organizational practices; and second, that we cannot
talk about values without asking what kind of model
of individual and society underlies the organizational
project and is thus being endorsed. Let us briefly con-
sider these structuring components to shed light on
the process with reference to values.
4.1. Reflective OE: its structuring components
Here we refer to those elements that we can take
into account in order to grasp the nature of OE in
an organization at any given moment.
a) A negative component. This refers to all those
organizational approaches aimed basically at
avoiding actions which might be considered
reprehensible. These approaches concern risk
avoidance and penalties. With these approaches,
one learns what one should not do rather than
what one should. When these approaches pre-
vail, they encourage reactive attitudes. Here we
include everything related to reputation man-
agement, to the extent that it might ultimately
reflect a desire to avoid a bad reputation.52
b) A normative component (of a legal nature).
This refers to all those organizational
approaches that reflect how organizations
square themselves with both the spirit and the
letter of the law. This also includes their con-
sistency in dealing with different demands and
legal frameworks in the countries where they
operate.
c) A normative component (of a fundamental
nature). This refers to the relevance that an
appeal to human rights has in corporate actions
and policies, which can range from passive con-
formity to active commitment. We believe that
on this point “the need for organizational ethics
becomes visible as a link between legality and
legitimacy”.53
d) A propositional component. This refers to the
whole gamut of instruments (codes, formal
Table 1: A comparison between the organizational and the ethical perspective
Ethics Organization
• The ‘good’ is defined in purpose • Corporate purpose is defined in terms of excellence
• The ‘good’ is realized in practices; • Organizational practices as talk fulfil human needs,
practices are sustained by virtues as collaborative process they are sustained by the
qualities which enable effective teamwork
• Practices support and are supported in the community • Practices are supported by a climate which
facilitates learning
•Narratives express the unity and the identity of • Organizational narratives play a key part in
a moral life by articulating its history and its future organizational sense making
• The tradition within which the narrative is • Organizational culture is the medium by which
embedded and practices are understood practices are understood and transmitted
provides the basis of rational justification
• The right is established by means of a discourse • Organizational decision making involves a
of moral argumentation collective choice process
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 56
statements, etc.) available to organizations in
explicitly proposing a frame of reference for its
actions. This enables a positive approach but when
the statements are taken out of context they can
become irrelevant or, worse still, a PR whitewash.
e) A personal component. This refers to the pos-
sibility — and the challenge — of increasing
human quality in the organizational context. The
question is not only to avoid the corrosion of
character54 but also to promote character-build-
ing as an intrinsic component of professional
development. This implies a system of
acknowledgement and reward for behaviour
which is consistent with corporate values.
f) A procedural component. This refers to the
way in which decision-making processes are
managed as well as the way in which tensions
and the diversity of criteria are dealt with. It
also covers the creation of a corporate tradition
in decision-making procedures, a tradition
enabling the corporation to manage conflicts
over incompatible options reflecting equally
desirable values.
g) An institutional component. This refers to
the range of instruments (e.g. from allocating
specific responsibilities to training pro-
grammes) whose purpose is to create new cor-
porate spheres in which values and practices
are made explicit, learnt and integrated in daily
work.
h) A relational component. This refers to build-
ing relationships with stakeholders which
includes the values at stake. Accordingly, rela-
tionships should not be reduced to merely man-
aging interests or to information gathering. The
relationship with stakeholders should also be
based on dialogue and partnership. This can be
especially relevant in the knowledge society
where the limits of organizations are more like
permeable membranes than sea walls.
i) An accountability component. This refers to
the need to find procedures to identify, evalu-
ate and give an account of the correlation
between corporate practices and values. “The
first point to make is that if ethical auditing is
to create ethical knowledge about the impacts
of companies on the ability of their employees,
customers, communities and other stakehold-
ers to lead good and flourishing lives. […]
However useful empirical data is, it is only half
the story. The other half is required if ethical
auditing is to create ethical knowledge, is a
process of experimentation and theory build-
ing”.55
j) A time frame. This refers to the time frame in
which a corporate project is set (i.e. whether it
is of a short-term nature or not).
I take the liberty of concluding this section with a
long quotation from Pruzan & Thyssen:
Developing and employing organizational ethics is
a demanding strategic task for the autopoietic orga-
nization. The focus is on the dynamic interplay
between conflict and consensus in an ongoing con-
versation between the organizations and its stake-
holders. The ideal of ethics is action which is ratio-
nally accepted for all the parties involved. This
ethical principle forms a basis for operational direc-
tives as to such far-reaching areas as the organiza-
tion’s and its stakeholders’ identity and values, the
development of the company’s ethical codex and
ethical accounting statement, the ethical design of
the organization, the dissolution of intra-, inter-,
and systemic conflicts, and finally formal proce-
dures for conflict solving when conflicts cannot be
dissolved by consensus. (…) It is often said that
ethics cannot co-exist with free market competi-
tion. Our conclusion is the opposite: only if the
enterprise develops — and lives up to — an orga-
nizational ethics can private initiative survive in the
long run.56
4.2. Reflective OE: how to understand the
process
The components of the previous section can help
us identify the state of affairs regarding OE in an
organization at a given moment. However, it
should be remembered that reflective OE is a
process. This is so because an organization not
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 57
only produces goods and services but in doing so,
it shapes itself. Consequently, a reflective OE
should attend to its processes as well as its con-
tents. These processes should enable us to answer
three questions: What are the values shaping our
identity? With what do we want to identify our-
selves and how do we want to be identified? Last
but not least, what do want to commit ourselves to
and in what way?
Such reflective and practical development of
corporate values and identity follows a sequence
that can take a host of forms in relation to
methodologies and instruments. The forms these
assume depend on the nature of each organiza-
tion and its circumstances. Nevertheless, the
process tends to go through certain stages
(FIGURE 3).
From this sequence (which characterizes the
entire OE), we would like to underline the fol-
lowing:
1. We should avoid the temptation of believing
that we start from scratch. On the contrary, it is
very important to give the opportunity to make
explicit the diversity of values concerning the
organization’s history and development. This
explicitation process should make it possible
not only to remember the formal statements but
also to bring to the surface the implicit values
identified as present in prevailing practices, atti-
tudes and tendencies. In this context, it is also
very important not to fall into the trap of mor-
alizing but instead let the organization’s values
surface, whatever we happen to think of them.
Figure 3:Reflective OE process.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 58
2. The critical reformulation of the predominant
values in the present organization should not be
approached in a confrontational fashion but
rather be directed towards building a consensus
which makes values explicit. This consensus
should not be reduced to an agreement on the
least common denominator but instead should
show the path ahead, emphasizing a shared pro-
ject. It should also take into account the contri-
bution that the organization makes to society: it
is vital not to turn reflective OE into an inward-
looking corporate process.
3. Values only make sense in a context. A
reflective OE aims at turning the organization
into a shared ethical space. For this reason an
exercise of creativity and innovation becomes
indispensable, an exercise enabling us to iden-
tify and formulate the specific practices and
policies giving shape to corporate identity. Clar-
ity in the orientation should be compatible with
trust and with respect for individual differences:
the objective is to generate identity and cohe-
sion, not to homogenize and control.
4. The entire process makes no sense without
some form of auditing and accountability,
which will make it possible to resume the
process and to turn the commitment with values
into a key for corporate improvement and inno-
vation, and into an opportunity to build stable
and transparent relations with stakeholders.
5. From all of the above it follows that a key
question for corporate identity is to decide to
whom one gives a say in the various stages of
the process. We refer here both to voices inside
and outside the organization. We believe that
the question should always be raised because
the answer we give will define the process
itself. This is so regardless of any decision to
limit participation on the grounds of expedi-
ency.
Evidently, behind this sequence there are certain
assumptions about learning and its participants.
First of all, we consider learning to be the opposite
of training. We understand training as transmitting
pre-determined content in order to achieve an objec-
tive defined without the participation of the people
involved. We also assume that the participants are
adults rather than children and treat them accord-
ingly. Stating that they are adults turns the partici-
pants into the focus of the process. This is not sim-
ply a question of teaching methods because adults
learn only to the extent that they wish to learn. In
other words, they learn to the extent that learning
gives a personal meaning to some specific problem
or issue addressed as the result of prior experience.
Learning does not take place in a vacuum, but
within a specific situation, which is the result of the
interplay between the internal conditions of the indi-
vidual and the objective conditions (especially cor-
porate conditions). In our opinion, however, the par-
ticipants’ role cannot be reduced to a vision that
considers them solely as human resources. Consid-
ering participants as human resources is a form of
reification, and thus learning becomes a form of
training. To sum up, we view participants in the
process as actors within organizations and not
Table 2: Two possible perspectives on OE’s development
Normative and top-down Narrative and dialogical
• Someone with authority establishes the values • The formulation process is an intrinsic component of
working with values
• The results establish the identity and give legitimacy • The process builds the identity and gives credibility
• Enunciate – communicate – accept – assume – apply • Enunciate – communicate – accept – assume – apply
• Obedience with participation • Value-building process
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 59
simply as mere human resources. We subscribe to
Dewey’s idea that if an experience is genuine there
exists “an active side which changes in some degree
the objective conditions under which experiences
are had”.57 This is indeed valid when we talk about
reflective OE.
If we had to summarize the possible perspec-
tives in OE’s development, we could do so by
underlining these two orientations.
These two approaches should not be considered as
descriptions but rather as paradigms and general
orientations when one engages in the process of
developing OE. In any case, whatever the
approach, we should not forget that some form of
enunciation, communication, acceptance, assump-
tion and application of corporate values is required
in any case. In any event, we believe that reflec-
tive OE will almost always require a narrative and
dialogical approach (Table 2).
Thus, we consider that our view of values has
to be sharpened and clarified within the framework
of reflective OE.
• We propose a dynamic view of values. Values are
not inanimate objects but rather the expression of
a horizon that directs and gives meaning to our
actions. This means that in our organizations, the
accent should not be on the definition of our iden-
tity (as if this were some fixed essence) but on what
we identify with, what our project is, what we have
in common, and what we want to achieve.
• We propose a practical view of values. We do
not proceed from formulated values to prac-
tices but rather we enunciate our values when
we give direction and meaning to what we do.
Values are not holy writ to be carved in stone
but a catalyst for innovation and creativity.58
Any discourse on values in an organization
should be linked to the process of making
associated improvements explicit regarding
competencies which should be developed and
to the policies that need to be implemented if
we want to assume these values, based on the
conviction that a reflective OE should entail
an improvement in an organization’s quality
and cohesion.
• We propose a dialogical perspective with
regard to values. A dialogical perspective can
go as far as reaching—at least potentially—all
stakeholders. Organizationally, the question is
to go from ‘my’ values to ‘our’ values. This
implies then an organizational environment that
takes into account the individuals’ autonomy,
sensibility, and values as well as professional
ethics. However, this does not mean we should
be satisfied with a cacophony of voices. Rather,
Figure 4: OE's learning process.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 60
these views are the point of departure and sup-
port for achieving one of reflective OE’s aims:
learning to say ‘we’ instead of just using ‘I’.59
• We propose a committed perspective with
regard to values. That is to say, we consider that
reference to values should not be rhetorical but
practical. This means that taking care of an
organization’s core values is one of the funda-
mental features of the management function and
of leadership at all the levels of the organiza-
tion. Put differently, reflective OE exists when
talking about the future and is inextricably
bound up with our present commitment.
We should recall that a true process of reflective
OE fosters learning, which in turn affects funda-
mental aspects of identity, both personal and orga-
nizational. This learning is an opportunity for
change and transformation (FIGURE 4).60
5. Beyond OE? Organizational citizenship
We have proposed a way of understanding OE.
Yet we should remember that we are faced by sev-
eral crucial considerations which impinge upon the
field of organizational ethics.
We live in a society that is made up of organi-
zations. Their impact (both positive and negative)
as social actors raises questions concerning the
values guiding them and the legitimacy of their
actions. A society comprising organizations is an
interdependent one and is structured in networks.
It means that each organization has to create its
own network of relationships and decide the cri-
teria and values that guide its actions and provide
its raison d’être. It is for this reason that we have
talked about reflective OE.
Moreover, if we talk about organizations —
and about OE — we do so because we are not
thinking only about business but about a complex
society like ours, structured by many types of
organizations, each with its unique features, shap-
ing its own OE.61 Furthermore, we should over-
come the implicit division of labour according to
which each organization (corporations, govern-
ments, institutions, NGOs, non-profit, etc.) has its
particular kind of responsibility and therefore
ignores all other responsibilities. In today’s world,
responsibilities are shared — we cannot limit our-
selves to talk about one’s own responsibilities, we
need to speak about shared responsibilities. Con-
sequently, the inter-relationship between different
Figure 5: The organization in its social context.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 61
types of organizations is increasingly important in
meeting social challenges. If a genuine dialogue
is to arise from such an inter-relationship, it is
essential that organizations rethink the way they
see themselves. In this sense, we think that a part-
nership approach will be one of the keys to OE in
the future.
The future of organizations is inseparable from
the future of society, and vice versa. Accordingly,
we think that will become increasingly necessary
to also speak of organizational citizenship and not
only of OE. Simply stated, we cannot elaborate a
reflection on organizations without also reflecting
on their contribution to society. We could visual-
ize organizational citizenship as the intersection of
three elements (FIGURE 5).62
Speaking of OE in this way helps correct the risk
of adopting a unilateralist stance. When we only
find development or management of values in an
organization it means there is a risk of manipula-
tion and indoctrination (to the extent that anyone
talking only about values whilst looking inwards
is probably bent on making the organization
homogeneous and closed). When we find only
organizational references to stakeholders, it means
the firm runs the risk of only seeking a pragmatic
approach based on strategic advantage, ignoring
the need for dialogue. When we find only organi-
zational references to the company’s contribution
to society, it means that the firm runs the risk of
merely carrying out a PR exercise. It is the inte-
gration of all three elements that makes OE appear
publicly as organizational citizenship.
“Corporate citizenship is an essential feature
of the New Economy. Corporate citizenship is
about business taking account of their total
impact on society and the natural environment.
[…] Corporate citizenship implies a strategy that
moves from a focus on short-term transaction to
longer-term, values-based relationships with
these stakeholders. This is exactly what one
would expect in the New Economy, where loy-
alty will be based on a company’s ability to build
a sense of shared values and mission with key
stakeholder”.63 In our context of globalization,
we speak of organizational citizenship because
governance is a challenge for everyone in an
interdependent world. We need also a civil con-
tribution to governance at the micro, meso and
macro levels. It is true that some organizations
(particularly corporations) are, through their
actions, part of the problems plaguing our world,
however all of them should be part of the solu-
tion. In this respect, we consider organizational
citizenship as the public constitution of a devel-
oped and reflective OE.
In conclusion, we can divine both a trend and
propose a path for the future. Organizational cit-
izenship implies a broader vision of organiza-
tions as social actors operating within a social
context. This means highlighting the role of
organizations as social contributors and innova-
tors. This also means that the specific contribu-
tion of each organization to society takes the
shape of an itinerary from OE to organizational
citizenship.
Notes
1. T.J. Peters and R.H. Waterman, In Search of Excellence (New York: Harper & Row, 1982).
2. M.W. Hoffman, “What Is Necessary For Corporate Moral Excellence?” Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986):
233-242.
3. European Commission, Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility [report] July 2001
[accessed 20 December 2002]; available from http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-dial/ csr/greenpaper.htm.
4. M. Castells, The Information Age (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000).
5. Nonetheless, one should analyze each case carefully. Just as the new social demands have generated in some
corporations a mere reactive attitude (which is limited to the search for a better management of its reputation), some
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 62
corporations adopt a management by values approach, as if they did not have enough with buying the capacities of
those who work there, and would want to buy also their souls.
6. P.Pruzan, “The Question of Organizational Consciousness: Can Organizations Have Values, Virtues and
Visions?” Journal of Business Ethics 29 (2001): 271-284, 275.
7. D. Wood, “Corporate Social Performance Revisited,” Academy of Management Review 16/4 (1991): 691-718.
8. Along similar lines, but with a more sociological perspective, see P. Koslowski, Ethik des Kapitalismus (Tub-
ingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1982).
9. C.I. Barnard, The Functions of the Executive (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938), 8.
10. Two articles, which are essential to study this question, inspired this title: L.K. Trevino, “A Cultural Perspec-
tive on Changing and Developing Organizational Ethics,” Research in Organizational Change and Development
4 (1990): 195-230; A. Sinclair, “Approaches to Organizational Culture and Ehtics,” Journal of Business Ethics
12 (1993): 63-73.
11. G. Morgan, Images of Organization (London: Sage, 1986).
12. A. Pettigrew, “On Studying Organizational Cultures,” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (1979): 570-581, 572.
13. For a detailed development of these questions, see L. Smircich, “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analy-
sis,” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983): 339-358.
14. Which, let us remember, they should never be considered isolated from their social context.
15. We use this expression here in the sense given by Berger and Luckman in P.L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The
Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1967).
16. Smircich, 1983, 348.
17. E.H. Schein, “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture,” Sloan Management Review (1984):
3-16, 3.
18. Schein, 1984, 4.
19. P. Gagliardi, “The Creation and Change of Organizacional Cultures: A Conceptual Framework,” Organization
Studies 7/2 (1986): 117-134.
20. Perhaps the best example can be found in Peters & Waterman’s book In Search of Excellence (1982) where the ambigu-
ity of the emphasis in the culture and values of corporations was revealed in all its splendour insofar as this discourse seemed
to be directed to finding new ways of submission to the corporation through a fusion between personal and corporate values, so
that values become an element of integration and order, and occupy the place that discipline had occupied before. See, for exam-
ple, the excellent study by Soeters (1986) where he identifies in these views the same features present in social movements of
a totalitarian nature.
21. In our view, what is here under discussion is the temptation to qualify everything that refers to organizational
culture automatically as ethics (thus identifying ethics and organizational culture).
22. It is this point that, in my opinion, makes all the rhetoric around the management of values so ambiguous.
23. On this point see Trevino, 1990.
24. Hoffman, 1986, 237.
25. This section intends to point out only one aspect of the relationship between our topic and these other issues.
26. For a detailed analysis of the dimensions of corporate power, see E.M. Epstein, “Dimensions of Corporate
Power (1),” California Management Review 16/2 (1973): 9-23; E.M. Epstein, “Dimensions of Corporate Power (2),”
California Management Review 16/4 (1974): 32-47.
27. T. Donaldson and L.E. Preston, “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications,”
Academy of Management Review 20/1 (1995): 65-91.
28. And in the last case one should also distinguish if the interests at stake in relation to each stakeholder are valued in
an instrumental way or because of their intrinsic value.
29. W.E. Halal, “The Collaborative Enterprise. A Stakeholder Model Uniting Profitability and Responsibility,”
Journal of Corporate Citizenship 2 (2001): 27-42, 28.
30. Collier, 1998, 634.
31. “We would like to speak to the other side of leadership: the need to appreciate diversity within the organization.
We recognize that executives are powerful to the extent that they do both simultaneously, helping diverse members
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 63
experience themselves as contributing to a shared understanding that drives collective action” in S. Srivastva and
F.J. Barrett, “Foundations for Executive Integrity: Dialogue, Diversity, Development,” in Executive Integrity: The
Search for High Human Values in Organizational Life, eds. S. Srivastva et al. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988), 303.
32. R.A. Heifetz, Leadership without Any Answers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994).
33. “The value of a shared mission is not the outcome of the shared agreement itself but the opportunity it creates
for the tolerance of discord, for creative individual expression. (…) Agreement, in fact, is never identity, and so even
the appearance of unanimous agreement is only a comforting fiction”. In Srivastva and Barrett, 1988, 308.
34. P. Pruzan, “Corporate Reputation: Image and Identity,” Corporate Reputation Review 4/1 (2001): 50-64, 50.
35. It is not at all accidental that the closed and self-sufficient approaches to organizational cultures almost never
talk about corporate social responsibility.
36. Cf. the expression “learning as a way of organizing”, Watkins and Marsick, 1993. In general, ‘organizing’ is
preferred to ‘organization’.
37. Cf. P. Pruzan and O. Thyssen, “Conflict and Consensus: Ethics as a Shared Value Horizon for Strategic Plan-
ning,” Human Systems Management 9 (1990): 135-151.
38. Let us recall that “the learning organization is one that learns continuously and transforms itself. Learning takes place in
individuals, teams, the organization and even the communities with which the organization interacts. Learning is a continuous,
strategically used process integrated with, and running parallel to, work. Learning results in changes in knowledge, beliefs, and
behaviours. Learning also enhances organizational capacity for innovation and growth”. (Watkins and Marsick, 1993, 8).
39. J.S. Brown and P. Duguid, “Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of
Working, Learning and Innovation,” Organization Science 2/1 (1991): 40-57, 41.
40. Collier, 1998, 634
41. “Workplace learning is best understood, then, in terms of the communities being formed or joined and personal
identities being changed. The central issue in learning is becoming a practitioner not learning about practice. This
approach draws attention away from abstract knowledge and cranial processes and situates it in practices and com-
munities in which knowledge takes on significance” (Brown and Duguid, 1991, 48).
42. I. Nonaka and K. Noburu, “The Concept of Ba: Building a Foundation For Knowledge Creation,” California
Management Review 40/3 (1998): 40-54.
43. Nonaka and Konno, 1998, 42. Note the importance of beliefs, ideals and values, and their inseparability from
knowledge and concrete practices.
44. I. Nonaka and K. Noburu, 1998.
45. V. Marsick and A. Sauquet, “Learning Through Reflection,” in The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory
and Practice, eds. M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), 385.
46. For additional study of this question, see question J.M. Lozano and R. Ribera, “Spirituality in Management:
A New Chance for Management, A New Chance for Spirituality,” The Journal of SlaM 1 (2002).
47. This is a key question in the development of Business Ethics, cf. J.M. Lozano, Ethics and Organizations. Under-
standing Business Ethics as a Learning Process (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000).
48. J. Collier, “Theorising the ethical organization,” Business Ethics Quarterly 8/4 (1998): 646-654, 646.
49. We say ‘build’ in part in the sense of ‘conscious will’, as implied by the expression. But also in the sense of
‘social construction of reality’ proposed by Berger & Luckman.
50. We do not talk about solution because this would mean that there is only one problem, and we know what it
is. In our case, given our topic, we prefer to talk about approach because it puts the accent in a way to tackle simul-
taneously the relation between problem and solution.
51. For an elaboration of this perspective, see Lozano, 2000.
52. For a presentation of the interest in reputation from the perspective of the homo oeconomicus, see M. Baurmann,
The Market of Virtue: Morality and Commitment in a Liberal Society (Dordrecht: Kluwer Law International, 2002).
53. Pruzan and Thyssen, 1990, 140.
54. R. Sennett, The Corosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism (New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998).
55. C. Mackenzie, “Ethical Auditing and Ethical Knowledge,” Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1998): 1395-1402,
1397.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 64
56. Pruzan and Thyssen, 1990, 151.
57. J. Dewey, Experience and Education (New York: MacMillan, 1938), 39.
58. Nevertheless, recording values in writing serves a purpose.
59. Evidently, this does not mean removing individual identity within the group.
60. C. Folguera, “L’aprenentatge en els processos d’internacionalització de petites i mitjanes empreses deCatalunya”
(Ph.Diss., Esade – Ramon Llull University, 2000).
61. We should not presuppose that this is a challenge for only one kind of organization. To put it clearly, we should not
think that everything we have said is a problem affecting only corporations and that, for instance, NGOs are not implied.
Moreover, to follow with the example, to the extent that NGOs are organizations loaded with value-speech, they might run
a greater risk of being deficient in OE, for they might believe that this is a question that does not concern them.
62. Zadek, Pruzan and Evans (1997)
63. S. Zadek, N. Hojensgaard and P. Raynard, The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship (Copenhagen: The Copen-
hagen Centre, 2000), 8. Let us take into account that: “The New Economy is more than the internet, or even its underly-
ing information and communications technologies. The New Economy is short-hand for a radical shift in how we organize
ourselves, how economic wealth is created and how relationships work between individuals, institutions and communities,”
Zadek, Hojensgaard and Raynard (27).
Bibliography
Barnard, Chester I. The functions of the executive. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Baurmann, Michael. The Market of Virtue. Morality and Commitment in a Liberal Society. Dordrecht: Kluwer Law
International, 2002.
Berger, Peter.L., and Luckmann, Thomas. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday, 1967.
Brown, John S., and Paul Duguid. “Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of
working, learning and innovation.” Organization Science 2/1 (1991): 40-57.
Castells, Manuel. The information age. Oxford: Blackwell, 2000.
Collier, Jane. “Theorising the ethical organization.” Business Ethics Quarterly 8/4 (1998): 621-654.
Dewey, John. Experience and Education. New York: MacMillan, 1938.
Donaldson, Tom, and Lee E. Preston. “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Impli-
cations.” Academy of Management Review 20/1 (1995): 65-91.
Epstein, Edward M. “Dimensions of Corporate Power (1).” California Management Review 16/2 (1973): 9-23.
Epstein, Edward.M. “Dimensions of Corporate Power (2).” California Management Review 16/4 (1974): 32-47.
Folguera, Conxita. “L’aprenentatge en els processos d’internacionalització de petites i mitjanes empreses de
Catalunya”. Ph.D. diss., ESADE – Ramon Llull University, 2000.
Gagliardi, Pasquale. “The Creation and Change of Organizational Cultures: A Conceptual Framework.” Organization
Studies 7/2 (1986): 117-134.
Halal, William E. “The Collaborative Enterprise. A Stakeholder Model Uniting Profitability and Responsibility.” Jour-
nal of Corporate Citizenship 2 (2001): 27-42.
Heifetz, Ronald A. Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Hoffman, Michael W. “What is Necessary for Corporate Moral Excellence?”.
Journal of Business Ethics 5 (1986): 233-242.
Koslowski, Peter. Ethik des Kapitalismus. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1982.
Lozano, Josep. M., and Raimon Ribera. “Spirituality in Management: A New Chance for Management, A New Chal-
lenge for Spirituality”. The Journal of SlaM 1 (2002).
Lozano, Josep M., and Alfonso Sauquet. “Integrating Business and Ethical Values through Practitioner Dialogue.” Jour-
nal of Business Ethics 22 (1999): 203-217.
Lozano, Josep M. Ethics and Organizations. Understanding Business Ethics as a Learning Process. Dordrecht: Kluwer,
2000.
Mackenzie, Craig. “Ethical Auditing and Ethical Knowledge.” Journal of Business Ethics 17 (1998): 1395-1402.
Ethical Perspectives 10 (2003)1, p. 65
Marsick, Victoria K., and Alfonso Sauquet. “Learning through reflection”. In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice. Edited by M. Deutsch and P.T. Coleman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
Morgan, Gareth. Images of Organization. London: Sage, 1986.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Noburu Konno. “The Concept of Ba: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation.” Califor-
nia Management Review 40/3 (1998): 40-54.
Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper & Row, 1982.
Pettigrew, Andrew. “On Studying Organizational Cultures”. Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (1979): 570-581.
Pruzan, Peter. “Corporate Reputation: Image and Identity.” Corporate Reputation Review 4/1 (2001) 50-64.
Pruzan, Peter. “The Question of Organizational Con- sciousness: Can Organizations Have Values, Virtues and Visions?”
Journal of Business Ethics 29 (2001): 271-284.
Pruzan, Peter, and Ole Thyssen. “Conflict and Consensus: Ethics as a Shared Value Horizon for Strategic Planning.”
Human Systems Management 9 (1990): 135-151.
Schein, Edgard H. “Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture.” Sloan Management Review Winter (1984):
3-16.
Sennett, Richard. The Corrosion of Character: The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York:
W. W. Norton & Company, 1998.
Sinclair, Amanda. “Approaches to Organizational Culture and Ethics.” Journal of Business Ethics 12 (1993): 63-73.
Smircich, Linda. “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (1983):
339-358.
Soeters, Joseph L. “Excellent Companies as Social Movements.” Journal of Management Studies May (1986):
299-312.
Srivastva, Suresh, and F.J. Barrett. “Foundations for Executive Integrity: Dialogue, Diversity, Development”. In Exec-
utive Integrity. The Search for High Human Values in Organizational Life. Edited by S. Srivastva et al. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988.
Trevino, Linda K. “A cultural perspective on changing and developing organizational ethics.” Research in Organiza-
tional Change and Development 4 (1990): 195-230.
Watkins, Karen E, and Victoria J. Marsick. Sculpting the learning organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
Wood, Donna J. “Corporate Social Performance Revisited.” Academy of Management Review 16/4 (1991): 691-718.
Zadek, Simon: “The New Economy of Corporate Citizenship”. In Perspectives on the New Economy of Corporate
Citizenship. Edited by S. Zadek, N. Hojensgaard and P. Raynard. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre, 2001.
Zadek, Simon, Niels Hojensgaard and Peter Raynard. Perspectives on the New Economy of Corporate Citizenship.
Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre, 2001.
