Blockchain and business ethics

Dierksmeier, Claus; Seele, Peter

doi:10.1111/beer.12259

Cited by 54 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When examining justifications, I build on Habermasian discourse ethics (Habermas, 1981) that has been object of much recent interest in business ethics and CSR research (Anastasiadis, Moon, & Humphreys, 2018; Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020; Richter & Dow, 2017; Schultz & Seele, 2020). I here use Habermasian ethics for investigating if corporations make efforts at establishing a proper discourse in CSR justifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

Norberg

2020

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Business is frequently criticized for not taking social and environmental responsibility. Large companies respond with CSR activities and some also with formulating justifications for their actions. This could indicate that business opens up to the criticism. I do, however, not observe such openness in the current study, but how companies use “CSR justifications” to fend off criticism. While companies use justifications as tool for creating legitimacy, I distinguish five justification fallacies. These failures in dealing with criticism cause a marginalisation of criticism, society, and environment. The fallacies found are neglecting criticism, shareholder primacy, organisation‐centricity, conflict avoidance, and progressivism. I contribute to the use of Habermasian ethics in the business ethics literature by showing how CSR justifications could play a part in a rational discourse. The concept justification fallacy, and the five fallacies can provide a framework for analysing corporate rhetoric more generally. Managers have fundamental difficulties in handling ethics and do not reflect on their reasons for working with CSR. They should be more careful when formulating justifications. In our situation of increasing affective polarisation, business needs to be more constructive than merely to marginalise criticism.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

Norberg

2020

Business Ethics: A Eur Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…And because machines do not have any motivation, they cannot meet all conditions of trust in people. Particularly in this paper and many others (Berg et al, 2017;Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020;Karamitsos et al, 2018), the condition about vulnerability to betrayal when talking about trust in machines is removed. suppliers to be more reliable rather than more trustworthy.…”

Section: Trustmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…As a result, a shift from trust in other parties to trust in blockchain raises concerns among researchers. Dierksmeier and Seele (2020) argue that the impact is morally ambivalent. Applications of blockchain technology reduce misuse of trust but may change our perception of trust in the individual and social level (Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dierksmeier and Seele (2020) argue that the impact is morally ambivalent. Applications of blockchain technology reduce misuse of trust but may change our perception of trust in the individual and social level (Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020). The changing perception of trust may not be good, since there will be less personal and commercial trust and a possible trade-off between commercial efficiency and culture related to trust (Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Applications of blockchain technology reduce misuse of trust but may change our perception of trust in the individual and social level (Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020). The changing perception of trust may not be good, since there will be less personal and commercial trust and a possible trade-off between commercial efficiency and culture related to trust (Dierksmeier & Seele, 2020). (Berg et al, 2017) state that "economically-valuable trust", or trust in blockchain, is a better kind of trust.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Impact of Blockchain Applications on Trust in Business

He¹

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Blockchain applications are considered as "trustless" machines, because they reduce business's needs of trust in others. The "trustless" nature draws researchers' attention on investigating the implications of blockchain in a business environment. From a view of business ethics, this paper aims at evaluating the impacts of blockchain applications on trust and business. After expounding the relations between trust in blockchain and trust in business partners, I evaluate the impacts based on a framework of competence trust, contractual trust, and goodwill trust. My conclusion is that full acceptance of trust in blockchain over trust in others is not good and will cause several risks that cannot be neglected. The main contribution of this paper is investigating and summarizing ethical and commercial risks of blockchain applications including disintermediation fallacy, centralization of trust, ambiguous contract, noncognitive trust in untrustworthy partners, and more actions guided by moral minimum.

show abstract

Building blockchain‐driven dynamic capabilities for developing circular supply chain: Rethinking the role of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, firms face increasing pressure to efficiently utilize resources and minimize costs and may do so through sustainable supply chains and circular economy practices. Emerging technologies, such as blockchain, to enable a circular economy have become a new industrial paradigm. However, firms require building dynamic capabilities through blockchain, which can be key to realizing circular economy model. This study introduces a framework for building blockchain‐driven dynamic capabilities for a circular supply chain. We further use the Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method to evaluate three major dynamic capabilities and 18 sub‐dynamic capabilities and their interrelationships. The mining industry in Ghana sets the stage for this analysis. The study results show that although blockchain‐driven sensing dynamic capability, seizing dynamic capability, and reconfiguring dynamic capability are crucial for developing a circular supply chain, they do not strictly follow a sequence and overlap. We highlight various cause–effect relationships, providing insights into the role of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring dynamic capabilities. That information is important to firms, stakeholders, and partners to draft an appropriate strategy to build blockchain‐driven dynamic capabilities for developing a circular supply chain.

show abstract

Blockchain and business ethics

Cited by 54 publications

References 49 publications

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

CSR politics of non‐recognition: Justification fallacies marginalising criticism, society, and environment

Impact of Blockchain Applications on Trust in Business

Building blockchain‐driven dynamic capabilities for developing circular supply chain: Rethinking the role of sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About