From Social Contract Theory to Code of Ethics In Management

Abstract

This paper refers to the relationship of Social Contract Theory to the current probably most used instrument of Corporate Social Responsible Management, which is a voluntary written commitment most often called as “Code of Ethics”. In the theoretical and analytical level, the authors explain the connection between So­ cial Contract Theory and the Code of Ethics Concept. In the classical modern European philosophy, the con­ cept of the leadership of the society (nation, state) was created, which is authorized as far as its members voluntarily accepted it. This Social Contract Theory served to clarify where the legal norms came from and the ensuing rights and obligations of members of society. The Code of Ethics function in the company can be seen in a similar way for institutions. This is a voluntary commitment that becomes the norm for the ma­ jority of stakeholders. The paper presents the hypothesis that the original philosophical Social Contract The­ ory manifests itself in current CSR (Corporate Social Responsible) Management in the form of the Code of Ethics. These voluntary regulations are part of corporate voluntary commitments and are now being updat­ ed in the corporate and management environment.

Full text

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 25
{3/22}
1. Introduction
The Social Contract Theory is described as one of
the first attempts of philosophy to rationally ex-
plain the reason why people should or should not
adhere to the standards of current social order
(Naxera, Stuchlík, 2013; Bellig, Kollert, 2017). The
Social Contract Theory explains why people (citi-
zens, clients) delegate their power to ‘leaders’,
whether kings, politicians or institutions (Sobotka,
Znoj et al., 1993; Shapiro 2003). Understanding
and application of the Social Contract Theory in
the history of social sciences have narrowed only
to the areas of politics, social sciences or law. How-
ever, Social Contract Theory may have a broader
concept that affects the way of managing not only
the state, but also institutions such as companies
or corporations. The Social Contract Theory and
Code of Ethics Concept meet in the methodology
of “social ethics”, where voluntary regulations for
any action in written forms changes a decision
making (Lere, Gaumnitz, 2003).
The social contract theory was an influential so-
cial theory that criticized the legal system where
its members could not “voluntarily” influence the
state policy. When universal voting rights have
been introduced in Western countries since the
20th century, the Social Contract Theory is per-
ceived as a closed historical chapter in the history
of philosophy. The social contract as a concept of
voluntary commitment to certain actions is mani-
fested today in various areas from politics to man-
agement. This paper aims to show a concrete ex-
ample of where Social Contract Theory has been
implemented in the corporate culture of Corporate
Social Responsible Management by the principle
of “voluntary regulations” of an institution embod-
ied in its “Code of Ethics”.

From Social Contract Theory
to Code of Ethics In Management
}Jiří Nesiba » Newton College a. s.; email: jiri.nesiba@newtoncollege.cz
}Jiří Koleňák » Newton College a. s.; email: jiri.kolenak@newtoncollege.cz
*
But we need by no means assume that this contract (contractus originarius or pactum sociale)…
actually exists as a fact…It is merely an idea of reason, which nonetheless has undoubted
practical reality.
KANT, I.: Theory and practice, In Kant’s Political Writings,
Cambridge University Press, 1970, p. 92.
I learnt from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved came
from duty well done.
GANDHI, M. K.: A Letter Addressed to the Director-General UNESCO. In UNESCO (ed.),
Human Rights: Comments and Interpretations, New York: Columbia University
Press, 1948, p.18.

26 Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference
The Code of Ethics is a voluntary obligation of
an institution that, beyond the law, defines and
shapes its conduct and concludes a “contractual
relationship” with its employees, clients, suppliers
or third parties (generally stakeholders) to comply
with a defined type of behavior. Code of Ethics is
the basic essence of the corporate culture. If stake-
holders enter into any relationship with such an in-
stitution, they voluntarily agree to the Code of Eth-
ics. That is why the relationship of Social Contract
and CSR Management in a particular corporation
is sometimes referred to as “Social Contract of the
Firm” (Sacconi, 2000)
In the same way, the Social Contract Theory, in
its broader and historical sense, can generally be
seen as an attempt to solve a social problem by
“voluntary responsive regulation” (Německý, 2015;
Ayres, Braithwaite, 1992).
From this point of view, social contract theory
can be understood as an idea or as a collective ar-
chetype that permeates modern society in various
concrete forms (Nesiba, 2019). The paper thus
shows how classical philosophical concepts can be
interconnected in contemporary management. So-
cial Contract Theory and Code of Ethics Concept in
the current Corporate Social Responsible Manage-
ment (CSR Management) bear many similar fea-
tures.
2. History of Social Contract Theory
The Social Contract Theory combines two types of
law: so-called positive law (lat. ius positivum) and
so-called natural law (lat. ius naturale). Positive
law claims that the creator of the law is the one
who rules (the state, the owner, the king). The per-
son who controls thus determines the boundary
between legal and illegal. This objective right is su-
perior to the subjective right, it is written and bind-
ing for all. On the contrary, natural law determines
that every member of society has its “natural law”,
which may be superior to positive law (Var vařovský,
2015). The Social Contract Theory combines both
levels of law — every person has the right (in theo-
ry) to agree which natural laws are voluntarily
(voluntary regulation) becoming a positive law,
i.e. binding. Natural law has inferred the concept
that people should “voluntarily” and “naturally”
agree to obligations that create a positive law based
on natural law. This is the main ethical level where
law and ethics meet and where applications arise
towards written management standards (Fisher,
2000).
In the past (especially in the modern era) the
Social Contract Theory was understood by people
(citizens) that they may not respect those laws for
which voluntary consent was not created (e.g. if
the state sets immoral laws where all citizens are
not equal to the law). In the 18th century, the Social
Contract Theory led to the legitimization of not re-
specting those written laws that deprived citizens
of their natural rights, e.g. to be free and independ-
ent from the sovereign (Verschoor, 2015).
The concept of Social Contract must be viewed
from history as a philosophical theory, as specula-
tion about where the limits of law enforcement
were and are (Stankiewicz, 2003). Social Contract
Theory is thus understood as a modern attempt to
explain the causes and advantages or disadvantag-
es of the emergence of a power hierarchy in Euro-
pean monarchies, i.e. from what source the legiti-
macy of feudal power arose (or did not arise).
However, because the existence of a genuine
signed de facto social contract has not been proven
by history (despite romantic attempts to re-estab-
lish and confirm such a contract), the concept of
Social Contract has gradually abandoned since the
19th century. Therefore this philosophical theory
has been gradually replaced by the theory of Com-
peting Political Parties since the 19th century when
each election creates a commitment between vot-
ers and political power to respect a certain political
program (Näsström, 2007).
However, although the Social Contract has
stopped being examined in the social sciences, the
more it started to be implemented in the real social
world. A memorandum of association may be a
voluntary obligation beyond statutory standards

{3/22}

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 27
whereby its actors voluntarily commit to a particu-
lar type of conduct. This approach of concluding
multiple social agreements is still typical of Euro-
pean culture.
A Social Contract means an agreement. Initial-
ly, this meant that in exchange for losing part of
their freedom, the participants were given the pro-
tection of their legitimate rights. The basis of such
a Social Contract in society is “volunteering” and
“voluntary commitment” or “voluntary regulations”.
Thus, everyone has the opportunity to voluntarily
confirm the contract. A contract on the distribu-
tion of rights and obligations is an artificial act that
does not arise from any obligation, and any obliga-
tion is the right of each participant. Originally, this
explanation contributed to the (de) legitimization
of feudalism, which forced the vassals to abide by
the established order without being able to express
their opinion. In the modern rivalry of political di-
rections, a citizen and a voter can express their
(dis)consent through a democratic election.
The concept of the Social Contract has a millen-
nium history and several interpretations and phil-
osophical theories have emerged since then. The
context of voluntary commitments arose from the
different social situations of countries. From an-
cient times to the Middle Ages, modern times to
the present. What all these interpretations have
combined is the accentuation of natural law over
positive law and the effectiveness of voluntary
commitment to the democratic development of so-
cial relations.
The concept of the Social Contract can be seen
already in ancient Greek philosophy, where the ap-
proach of Plato (Platon, 2017, 358c–359b) is most
emphasized, in Roman philosophy (Lucretius,
1971), in medieval philosophy (Marcilius of Pad-
ua). Then especially in Renaissance philosophy
(Thomas More, Thommaso Campanella). But
mainly in modern philosophy (Benedictus Spino-
za, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Da-
vid Hume, Immanuel Kant). Different bases and
contemporary contexts of authors have been dis-
cussed and analyzed many times (e.g. Riley, 1990).
The concept of Social Contract in the 19th centu-
ry ceased to be used, was replaced by various polit-
ical directions: liberalism, socialism, communism,
conservatism … etc. Moreover, positive science de-
manded in social sciences empirical facts, which
the theoretical concept of “social contract” built
closer to mythology than to serious objective sci-
ence.
An interesting connection is a fact that the dis-
cussion of the Social Contract occurs only in the
academic environment in the second half of the
20th century. For a short time, the Social Contract
was discussed concerning the circumstances of
the end of the Cold War and the relationship of the
free liberal economic system to the social market
economy, that is, the relationship of liberalism and
communitarianism (another term for socialism).
According to the liberal approach, the initial state
of uncertainty before the existence of the Social
Contract is a state where ethical norms are created,
followed by the social contract, which ensures a
state of certain fairness (Harsanyi, 1962). To reach
an agreement in the initial state, they cannot know
their particular interests, i.e. there must be a „veil
of ignorance“. In this theoretical liberal model, a
hypothesis is assumed to be an initial state where
everyone is equal in chances and everyone has to
pursue only their interests. This means that every-
one is equal at the starting line and has an equal
chance of success (Rawls, 2007). This legitimizes
the concept of Social Contract.
This justifies economic inequality in a demo-
cratic society because it claims that all members of
the group voluntarily joined the society and all on
equal terms. The righteousness of social relations
is based on fairness (i.e. justice derived from hon-
esty and decency), i.e. the rule upon which all
those involved must agree. This “fairness” can be
slightly disrupted only if it brings e.g. economic
benefits to all (Rawls, 2007). The state should be
just a “night watchman” of observance of fairness
(so-called minarchism). According to the liberal
concept of the function of the state may be held by
individual institutions, but mainly guarding each
{3/22}


28 Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference
other individual corporations, companies, stake-
holders, who voluntarily enter into a mutual rela-
tionship and create several “social contracts” with
each other. According to supporters of liberalism,
the state (especially the social and citizens tax bur-
densome) has no justification (Nozick, 2015). Us-
ing the Social Contract, the actors of the negotia-
tions try to legitimize their position through partial
agreements to involve as many stakeholders as
possible (Buchanan, 1975).
Contrary to this liberal concept, in the 1980s
economists accepted the concept of Social Con-
tract, which in turn preferred a certain variant of
socialism, which they called communitarianism.
These supporters of the stronger role of the state
were based on the ideas of ancient philosophers,
where the function of the polis had a stronger role
than the liberal rights of the individual. Contrary to
the pluralist view of liberalism, they preferred a
more uniform social contract framework for socie-
ty as a whole, and thus clear rules of justice for all.
Instead of individual freedom, accentuation to dif-
ferent segments of society is emphasized. Thus,
social contracts can be different and one can vol-
untarily enter into more (Tyler, 1989; Sandel,
1998).
However, the essence of all historical concepts
of the Social Contract is based on one context: en-
tering into a commitment must be voluntary. The
commitment is voluntary for all involved. This vol-
untary principle is the basis of the concept of a cor-
porate (firm) code of ethics. The codes of ethics
are a management tool that is not mandated by any
legal regulation. This is their advantage and per-
spective over legal standards. The code of ethics
may change according to the needs of stakeholders
and each corporation responds flexibly to the
needs of the market (Froněk, 2011).
These assumptions are underpinned by a new
concept of Social Contract Theory, such as “New
Social Contract” (OECD, 2019) or “Global Social
Contract” (The Earth Constitution, 2019) in the
context of current global social, economic and en-
vironmental risks. The main problem is the high
degree of theory and unclear aspects of the so-
called “contractualism”, i.e. how to put into prac-
tice a specific Social Contract (to secure the con-
sent of the stakeholders). To this extent, voluntary
regulations in the form of the Code of Ethics from
the management environment serve as a practical
ethical background.
3. Management and Voluntary Regulations
The character of “voluntary regulations”, which
are the basis of the Code of Ethics, can be seen
from the perspective of psychology, philosophy or
sociology. American sociologist Georg Herbert
Mead (1863–1931) described in the 1920s that vol-
untary ethical engagement blended an individual
with a team and teamwork brought strong empa-
thy in the group and a merger of the subject and
object self in social activities (Mead, 2017). Psy-
chologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) also
used the Social Contract Theory in his work. The
theory of moral development of personality based
on the relationship to the social contract is the so-
called “ideal type”. According to the relation to vol-
untary regulations, one can judge the developmen-
tal moral stages of an individual. According to
Kohlberg, morality is not firmly anchored and val-
ues are changeable within a person’s life, and the
individual passes from several levels of morality
from youth to old age. That is, the unwritten con-
cept of morality, which everyone understands as
moral (common sense). According to Kohlberg, to
understand people’s morality, it is necessary to un-
derstand their current ethical orientation. Accord-
ing to him, in the fifth stage of development, the
individual is oriented towards compliance with the
“Social Contract”. In this way, it seeks not to sup-
press other rights and values but perceives the pos-
sibility of the existence of common respect for gen-
eral norms more than the values themselves. At
this stage, according to Kohlberg, an individual
considers standards to be a Social Contract that
serves the entire society, and the laws are meant
to serve people, not people to serve the laws

{3/22}

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 29
(Kohlberg et al, 1983). Those, that do not support
the entire society should be changed. According to
Kohlberg, the advocates of this fifth stage (social
contract orientation) are the bearers of democratic
values.
The democratic government is based on these
people and the accompanying phenomenon is a
majority decision and an inevitable compromise.
According to Kohlberg, however, less than 15% of
people fall into this category. To methodically as-
sess into which category an individual belongs the
method of psychological testing is used (Kohlberg,
1981).
Voluntary regulations are also a higher degree
of morality and representation of human values in
terms of sociobiology (Wilson, 1980), in terms of
evolutionary biology, it establishes culture (Ridley,
2010). According to moral philosophy voluntary
regulations represent a basic prerequisite of an in-
dividual’s socialisation and creation of morale
when according to Kant’s meaning of the social-in-
tuitionist model, we behave the way we want oth-
ers to behave (Haidt, 2013, p. 75).
If we observe the relationship of voluntary reg-
ulations to shaping an effective corporate environ-
ment, if they are based on ethical regulations, they
create stronger corporate loyalty to the company
by both employees and investors or clients (Fuller-
ton, 2003).
This is most clearly formulated by Simon Sinek,
who perceives the true role of leaders and manag-
ers in the need to perform in a team the tasks we
consider right and learn to follow the rules that lead
to their accomplishment (Sinek, 2015, p. 92–96).
The degree of maturity of the use of voluntary
commitments and restrictions is evidenced by sev-
eral international agreements protecting the rights
of future generations. States voluntarily bind them-
selves, based on a “social” contract, to jointly regu-
late the consequences of their national policies
(Smolík, 2014, p. 80–81). These are cases of inter-
national environmental commitments, such as The
Paris International Agreement arisen from the lat-
est international climate convention, which has
gained global recognition. The Paris Agreement is
the last global agreement on climate change among
officials, reached on 12 December 2015 in Paris
(Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement builds on
the intentions of the 1992 United Nations Frame-
work Convention on Climate Change, signed in Rio
de Janeiro when states first made a voluntary com-
mitment to change in the area of hazardous emis-
sions (Framework Convention U.N., 1992).
The representatives of the states reached a vol-
untary agreement with clearly defined points:
• Governmentskeeptheaverageglobaltempera-
ture rise well below 2 °C compared to pre-in-
dustrial levels and will continue their efforts to
keep it below 1.5 °C
• Governmentsagreetoreportontheircontribu-
tions every 5 years
• Governmentshavealsoagreedtoreporttoeach
other and the public on how they are meeting
their objectives to ensure transparency and
oversight.
• TheEUandotherdevelopedcountrieswillcon-
tinue to provide climate finance to help devel-
oping countries reduce emissions as well as
build resilience to the impacts of climate change
(Paris Agreement, 2015).
With 195 participants, the agreement also sets
the commitment of the largest greenhouse gas pro-
ducers such as the US, China, and India. Some of
the participants voluntarily withdrew from the
agreement even after signing (e.g. USA in 2017).
The global climate is a public property that has
no clear owner. Therefore, its protection and ad-
ministration require the commitment of all partici-
pants (all states), thus creating the possibility of
creating a „social contract“. This is a typical situa-
tion where all involved voluntarily agree to a cer-
tain type of behavior because the risks of non-com-
pliance are the same for all (Beck, 2018). In a
situation where the way of managing private prop-
erty affects the public ones (the so-called common
pool), it refers to the natural state as described by
the philosophers of the Social Contract. The sim-
plest solution is to create a model of a regulator
{3/22}


30 Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference
whose legitimacy is based on the trust that he or
she does not have own partial interests and acts to-
wards the benefit of society as a whole. It is pre-
cisely the concept of the Social Contract that cre-
ates an environment for the international solution
to the protection of air, water, flora, and fauna. The
parties to the Social Contract are both states and
private companies and corporations.
In Czech commercial law, the term “social con-
tract” appears in a surprising context. The term
“social contract” was included in the Czech legal
order with the adoption of the Commercial Code in
1991, where “social contract” means an agreement
of several owners of any company, in which they
mutually voluntarily bind themselves to observe
the rules with each other. The members of the Fed-
eral Assembly then approved a translation from
English. In the Anglo-Saxon environment, howev-
er, the term “memorandum” or “articles of associa-
tion” is used for this type of “Social Contract”. In
the Anglo-Saxon world, the term “Social Contract”
is understood and used precisely and only for the
area of the social contract within the framework of
a philosophical theory.
The “Social Contract” thus created fulfills the
role of a “legal” code of ethics of conduct in every
company. Every Czech company or corporation
thus voluntarily creates its form of “Social Con-
tract”.
The theme of the social contract concept is thus
closely related to the cultivation of the economic,
political or business environment, where an insti-
tution increases the level of its social responsibility
(i.e. Corporate Social Responsibility) using a code
of ethics. In this way, the institutions are building a
new type of management and a new image. This
type of management is sometimes called Integrity
Management, CSR Management or Ethical Man-
agement.
4. Codes of Ethics: Principles for Ethical
Leadership
The Code of Ethics is a modern term for specific
commitments beyond the legal obligation that the
European tradition has been using in a certain sec-
tor for thousands of years (Nesiba – Kovanič 2017a,
Nesiba, Kovanič, 2017b). These include, for exam-
ple, the Hippocratic Oath of Doctors, the judicial
obligation of impartiality based on Roman law, but
also the voluntary principles of FairPlay sports
competition. Voluntary regulations and commit-
ments to the public (clients) are used by various
professional associations presenting their conduct,
product quality or service to the Code of Ethics. In
modern form, this instrument began to be used
from the mid-19th century, in mass form from the
mid-20th century, mainly in Western countries of
Anglo-Saxon culture, from where it spread to other
countries (Backof, Martin, 1991).
It is related to “business ethics” in private as
well as public institutions and is a concrete meas-
urable manifestation of CSR Management, Integri-
ty Management or Ethical Management. The au-
thors have already noticed that the Code of Ethics
shows the overall measurable corporate culture
of an institution whose commitment to Code of
Ethics is, at a time when the codes of ethics have
begun to be massively implemented in the corpo-
rate culture of global corporations (e.g. Lozano,
1998).
The Code of Ethics is a written document that
attempts to establish mainly philosophical princi-
ples and formulate the values professed by the
members of the organization. The codes of ethics
formulate ethical parameters and determine what
is acceptable and what no longer is. They are a
sub-legal standard that is voluntarily approved and
adopted by institutions or organizations and serves
for self-regulation of its own (Albareda, 2008).
The code of ethics does not have a clearly de-
fined structure and framework, as evidenced by
the fact that in the Anglophone environment other
terms correspond to the same, e.g. Ethical Codes,

{3/22}

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 31
Code of Practice, Code of Professional Responsibil-
ity, etc.
The definition is a systematically written set of
general, but also specific standards and regula-
tions in the institution. The Code of Ethics defines
relationships between members of a community
and its surroundings (employees, suppliers, cli-
ents, stakeholders). Members voluntarily (!) com-
mit themselves to adhere to certain behaviors, and
the Code of Ethics shapes performance following
values and ethical standards of the organization. It
is therefore related to ethical management in pri-
vate as well as public institutions. It is a written
document that attempts to establish mainly philo-
sophical principles and formulate the values pro-
fessed by the organization (Stevens, 1994).
It allows the public, clients or employees the
opportunity to control the internal operation of the
organization. All persons associated with the or-
ganization must be aware of the laws and regula-
tions that are potentially applicable in each partic-
ular case. Thus, codes of ethics help ensure that all
individuals know the rules in advance and always
follow them (Wulf, 2012).
Corporate Code of Ethics includes provisions
that concern the quality of products and services,
compliance with local laws and regulations, envi-
ronmental protection, but also principles such as
transparency, fairness, and honesty (Kaptein, 2004).
This removes the distrust of the institution
without the need to regulate it from the govern-
ment level (Pitt, Groskaufmanis, 1990). The influ-
ence of the Code of Ethics on management, corpo-
rate environment, and stakeholders can be as
follows:
• directinuence — theemployeeagreesonthe
Code and acts in compliance with it
• indirectinuence — incaseanemployeenoti-
fies a colleague of violating the Code and he
subsequently modifies his conduct (Schwartz,
2001).
Codes are effective if they are embedded in or-
ganizational culture and communicated adequate-
ly. Employees must be familiar with the content of
the Code and consider it their own, not just en-
forced by management (Stevens, 2008).
The codes of ethics can fulfill more functions.
The most important is the aspiration, regulatory or
educational functions (Putnová, Seknička, 2016).
The Code of Ethics can be addressed to specific
groups (stakeholders), such as employees, clients,
management, investors. In practical terms, the
Code of Ethics is addressed to all groups together.
It is currently the most widespread CSR Man-
agement tool in the economically developed coun-
tries (EU, U.S., Canada, Australia, Canada, etc.)
and is created by thousands of private and public
institutions, not only multinational corporations
but also medium and small businesses. Code of
Ethics is a changing management tool that results
from many cultural and intercultural aspects of so-
cial ethics (Ethics Code Collection, 2019).
Today, organizations such as U.N recommend
the Code of Ethics as voluntary regulations within
Table 1 » Similarities between Social Contract and Code of Ethics
social contract code of ethics
voluntary regulations yes yes
stakeholder participation yes yes
private and public sector yes yes
written form yes yes
higher morality yes yes
Source: Own Processing
{3/22}


32 Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference
institutions as part of their programs. (Social De-
velopment Goals, Global Compact, OECD (Guide-
lines for Multinational Enterprises), EU (EMAS),
European Business Association or ISO, etc.)
The interconnection of Social Contract and
Code of Ethics is shown in Table 1:
5. Conclusion
Social Contract Theory is a rediscovered forgotten
philosophical theory today, from which inspiration
can be drawn into contemporary management
(Jos, 2006). The article shows where the most
common links between the historical concept of
Social Contract and the current application in cor-
porate management, most often in CSR manage-
ment through the Code of Ethics. Social Contract
Theory manifests itself in “voluntary regulations”,
whereby corporations voluntarily create obliga-
tions beyond the law and restrict their actions in fa-
vor of higher ethical values. The Code of Ethics en-
vironment of economics thus cultivates the
behavior of individuals and creates a moral change
voluntarily. This is a bottom-up activity, i.e. there
is no regulation or government regulation, but
only voluntary action by the companies them-
selves. Employees, clients, suppliers or stakehold-
ers can voluntarily agree to the Code of Ethics prin-
ciples as a specific corporate culture. At this point,
the Social Contract and the Code of Ethics get clos-
er the most.
REFERENCES
[1] ALBAREDA, L. (2008). Corporate responsibility, governance and accountability: from selfregulation
to co-regulation, Corporate Governance, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 430–439.
[2] AYRES I., BRAITHWAITE. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate.
New York: Oxford University Press. https://books.google.cz/books?hl=cs&lr=&id=2043-vvL7HIC&oi
=fnd&pg=PR9&ots=R8xDus7huM&sig=mmM0A4PdolilhC5Mir3XNy4hC2Y&redir_esc=y#v=one
page&q&f=false.
[3] BACKOF J.F., MARTIN CH.J. (1991). Historical Perspectives: Development of the Codes of Ethics in
the Legal, Medical and Accounting Professions, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 99–110.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25072136?seq=1.
[4] BUCHANAN, J. M. (1975). The Limits of Liberty. Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
[5] BECK, U. (2018). Riziková společnost: Na cestě k jiné moderně. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství
SLON.
[6] BELLIG, V., KOLLERT, L. (2017). Suverenita panovníka, lidu a státu v moderní politické filosofii.
Olomouc: Nakladatelství J. E. Purkyně.
[7] Ethics Code Collection, Illinois Institute of Technology, Retreived from: [on-line]: https://ethics.iit.
edu/ecodes/#main-content.
[8] FROŇEK, M. (2011). Soudobé teorie společenské smlouvy. Karlova univerzita v Praze, Právnická
fakulta. Diplomová práce. Retrieved from: [on-line]: https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/zzp/detail/100349/.
[7] FISHER, B.D. (2000). Positive Law as an Ethic: Illustrations of the Ascent of Positive Law to Ethical
Status in the Commercial Sector, In Journal of Business Ethics Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 115–127.
[9] FULLERTON, G. (2003). When Does Commitment Lead to Loyalty? Journal of Service Research 5(4):
333–344. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240281592_When_Does_Commitment_Lead_
to_Loyalty.
[10] GANDHI, M. K. (1948). A Letter Addressed to the Director-General UNESCO. In UNESCO (ed.), Hu-
man Rights: Comments and Interpretations, New York: Columbia University Press.

{3/22}

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 33
[11] HAIDT, J. (2013). Morálka lidské mysli. Proč lidstvo rozděluje politika a náboženství. Praha: Dybbuk.
[12] HARSANYI, J. C. (1962). Bargaining in ignorance of the opponent’s utility function. In. Journal of
Conflict Resolution. Retrieved from: [on-line]: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002
76200600104.
[13] JOS, P. H. (2006). Social Contract Theory: Implications for Professional Ethics, IN. American Review
of Public Administration, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 139–155.
[14] KANT, I. (1970). Theory and practice, In Kant’s Political Writings, Cambridge University Press.
[15] KAPTEIN, M. (2004). Business codes of multinational firms: What do they say? In. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, vol. 50, no. 1.
[16] KOHLBERG, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol l. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development.
San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN 0-06-064760-4.
[17] KOHLBERG, L., LEVINE Charles L., HEWER A. (1983). Moral Stages: a current formulation and a re-
sponse to critics. Basel, New York: Karger.
[18] LERE, J. C., GAUMNITZ, B. R. (2003). The Impact of Codes of Ethics on Decision Making: Some In-
sights from Information Economics, In Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 48, No. 4, pp 365–379. https://
link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000005747.37500.c8#citeas.
[19] LOZANO, J. M. (1998). Ethics and Corporate Culture. A Critical Relationship. In: Ethical Perspectives 5,
pp. 53–70. http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/viewpic.php?TABLE=EP&ID=374.
[20] LUCRETIUS T. C. (1971). O přírodě. Praha: Svoboda.
[21] MEAD, G. H. (2017). Mysl, já a společnost, Praha: Portál, pp. 179–186.
[22] NAXERA, V., STULÍK, O. (2013). Teorie společenských smluv. Analýza vybraných novověkých
konceptů, Brno: Václav Klemm.
[23] NÄSSTRÖM, S. (2007). The Legitimacy of the People Political Theory. Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 624–658,
Sage Publications.
[24] NĚMECKÝ, M. (2015). Co drží společnost pohromadě? Praha: Karolinum.
[25] NESIBA J. (2019). Současné etické koncepce teorie společenské smlouvy, In: Acta Facultatis Philo-
sophicae Universitatis Safarikanae. Politologický zborník no. 9, Košice: Univerzita Pavla Jozefa
Šafárika v Košicich, Vydavateľstvo ŠafárikPress, p. 299–322. ISBN 978-80-8152-783-8.
[26] NESIBA, J., KOVANIČ, M. (2017). Etické kódexy parlamentných politických strán v Českej republike
a Slovenskej republike. In. ŠTEFANČÍK, R. Jazyk a Politika. Na pomedzí lingvistiky a politológie II.
1st edition, Ekonóm: Bratislava, pp. 567–577. ISBN 978-80-225-4424-5.
[27] NESIBA J., KOVANIČ M. (2017). Etické kodexy samosprávy v Brně. In KLÍMOVÁ, V., ŽÍTEK, V.
XX. MEZINÁRODNÍ KOLOKVIUM O REGIONÁLNÍCH VĚDÁCH. 20th edition, Brno: Masarykova uni-
verzita, pp. 898–903. ISBN 978-80-210-8587-9.
[28] NOZICK, R. (2015). Anarchie, státu a utopie. Praha: Academia.
[29] OECD, 2019, retrieved from [on-line]: https://www.oecd-forum.org/badges/634-new-societal-contract
[30] PAŘÍŽSKÁ DOHODA. Rámcová úmluva Organizace spojených národů o změněn klimatu. 2015.
Retrieved from [on-line]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/paris-agreement/paris-agreement.html?
locale=cs.
[31] PITT, H. L., GROSKAUFMANIS, K. A. (1990). Minimizing Corporate Civil and Criminal Liability: A
Second Look at Corporate Codes of Conduct. In. The Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 78, pp.1559–1654.
[32] PLATÓN (2017). Ústava. Praha: Oikoymenh.
[32] PRIBÁŇ, J. (1997). Suverenita, právo a legitimita. V kontextu moderní filosofie a sociologie práva,
Praha: Karolinum.
{3/22}


34 Proceedings of the 13th International Scientific Conference
[33] PUTNOVÁ, A., SEKNIČKA, P. (2016). Etika v podnikání a hodnoty trhu. Praha: Grada.
[34] RÁMCOVÁ ÚMLUVA OSN O ZMĚNĚ KLIMATU. Retrieved from [on-line]: https://www.mzp.cz/cz/
ramcova_umluva_osn_zmena_klimatu.
[35] RAWLS, J. (1995). Teorie spravedlnosti. Praha: Victoria Publishing.
[36] RAWLS, J. (2007). Spravodlivosť jako férovosť, Bratislava: Kalligram.
[37] RIDLEY, M. (2010). Původ ctnosti. O evolučních základech a zákonitostech nesobeckého jednání
člověka. Praha: Portál.
[38] RILEY, P. (1982). Will and Political Legitimacy: A Critical Exposition of Social Contract Theory in
Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
[39] SACCONI, L. (2000). The Social Contract of the Firm: Economics, Ethics, And Organisation (Ethical
Economy), Springer. ISBN 978-3642631351.
[40] SANDEL M. (1998). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University Press.
[41] SCHWARTZ, M. (2001). The Nature of the Relationship between Corporate Codes of Ethics and
Behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 247–262. ISSN 1573-0697. DOI 10.1023/
A:1010787607771.
[42] SHAPIRO, I. (2003). Morální základy politiky. Praha: Karolinum.
[43] SINEK, S. (2015). Lídři jedí poslední. Proč některé týmy drží pohromadě a jiné se rozpadají. Brno: Jan
Melvil Publishing.
[44] SMOLÍK, J. (2014). Úvod do studia mezinárodních vztahů. Praha: Grada Publishing.
[45] SOBOTKA, M., ZNOJ, M., MOURAL, J. (1993). Dějiny novověké filosofie od Descarta po Hegela, Pra-
ha: Filosofický ústav Akademie věd.
[46] SOBOTKA, M. (2015). Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Od rozpravy „O původu nerovnosti“ ke „společenské
smlouvě“. Praha: Karolinum.
[47] STEVENS, B. (1994). An analysis of corporate ethical code studies: “Where do we go from here?”
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63–69. ISSN 1573-0697.
[48] STEVENS, B. (2008). Corporate Ethical Codes: Effective Instruments For Influencing Behavior. In.
Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 78, no. 4.
[49] STANKIEWICZ, W. J. (2003). Politické teorie a současný svět. Klasické koncepty ve věku relativismu,
Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie.
[50] The Earth Constitution (2019). Retrieved from [on-line]: https://earth-constitution.org
[51] TOCQUEVILLE A. de (2003). Starý režim a revoluce. Praha: Academia.
[52] TYLER CH. (1989). Sources of the Self. Harward University Press.
[53] VARVAŘOVSKÝ, P. (2015). Základy práva. O právu, státě a moci. Praha: Wolters Kluwer.
[54] VERSCHOOR, M. (2018). The democratic boundary problem and social contract theory, In. Europe-
an Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp: 3–22, retrieved from [on-line]: https://journals.sage-
pub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1474885115572922.
[55] WILSON E. O. (1980). The Ethical Implications of Human Sociobiology, The Hastings Center Report.
Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 27–29.
[56] WULF, K. (2012). Ethics and Compliance Programs in Multinational Organizations. Berlin: Springer
Gabler.
[57] ZAKARIA, F. (2012). Budoucnost svobody. Neliberální demokracie v USA i ve světě. Praha: Academia.

{3/22}

European Forum of Entrepreneurship 2020 35
From Social Contract Theory to Code of Ethics In Management
ABSTRACT
This paper refers to the relationship of Social Contract Theory to the current probably most used instrument
of Corporate Social Responsible Management, which is a voluntary written commitment most often called
as “Code of Ethics”. In the theoretical and analytical level, the authors explain the connection between So-
cial Contract Theory and the Code of Ethics Concept. In the classical modern European philosophy, the con-
cept of the leadership of the society (nation, state) was created, which is authorized as far as its members
voluntarily accepted it. This Social Contract Theory served to clarify where the legal norms came from and
the ensuing rights and obligations of members of society. The Code of Ethics function in the company can
be seen in a similar way for institutions. This is a voluntary commitment that becomes the norm for the ma-
jority of stakeholders. The paper presents the hypothesis that the original philosophical Social Contract The-
ory manifests itself in current CSR (Corporate Social Responsible) Management in the form of the Code of
Ethics. These voluntary regulations are part of corporate voluntary commitments and are now being updat-
ed in the corporate and management environment.
KEY WORDS
Social Contract Theory, Code of Ethics, CSR Management, Stakeholders
JEL CLASSIFICATION
Q25; R58 Ñ
{3/22}