Ethical implications of the mediatization of organizations

Abstract

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to give theoretical and empirical arguments for new forms of communication and structure of organizations within the media and information society. Organizations must legitimate their "licence to operate" through social discourses and stakeholder communication. Possibilities to institutionalize ethics within organizations and possible barriers to such a programme are analysed. Design/methodology/approach -First, some theoretical arguments as to why mediatisation challenges organizations to prove ethical commitment are depicted, using a rights-based and social contract approach. Second, empirical examples for structural and communicational barriers in Austrian companies show possible practical constraints. Findings -Theoretical findings refer to the usefulness of applying business ethical models (especially rights-based, and social contract models) to reorganize mediatised organizations. Empirical findings concern the lack of institutionalized ethics management in companies and the corresponding problem of "PR-style" communication instead of stakeholder discourses.Research limitations/implications -The research reported in one section of the paper relies on the qualitative survey of 14 experts in different branches of the Austrian economy. While interviews can give a picture on how respondents understand the relevant research question and construct the respective reality, they are far from providing a representative picture of communicative ethical problems in mediatised organizations. Practical implications -Practical consequences should be possible, if companies understand the mediatised and communicative nature of their relationship with society and stakeholders and therefore react to that challenge by building up reputation through ethics management. Originality/value -The paper gives new insights to the important relationship between organizations and the public and shows how, e.g. enterprises can legitimate their business models and secure their long-term existence. New empirical research concerns cases from Austrian companies.

Digital communication in and beyond organizations: unintended consequences of new freedom

“…It should be clear for the reader that communication technologies are not a neutral topic; their value is a question of how organizational members use their new freedom offered through technologies (Litschka and Karmasin, 2012, p. 231). This new freedom should be used reasonably by taking dependencies through digital communication into account.…”

“…If no education concerning moral reasoning is offered to organizational members, immoral decision-making (e.g. exploiting availability of organizational members based on a neglect of social and temporal dependencies), would increase moral risks (Litschka and Karmasin, 2012, p. 230). In 14 expert interviews with scientists and managers, Litschka and Karmasin (2012, pp.…”

“…exploiting availability of organizational members based on a neglect of social and temporal dependencies), would increase moral risks (Litschka and Karmasin, 2012, p. 230). In 14 expert interviews with scientists and managers, Litschka and Karmasin (2012, pp. 229-231) identified different impediments to moral decision-making, among others a lack of education to acquire this kind of reasoning.…”

“…Educating and training this competence may include discursive abilities, awareness raising and intersubjective agreements (Litschka and Karmasin, 2012, pp. 231–233).…”

Beyond distributions and primary goods: Assessing applications of rawls in information science and technology literature since 1990

“…Clarke and Roache (2012) mention Rawls as typical of contemporary liberal political philosophy, and Levy (2012) situates Rawls as an authority on the historical roots of liberalism. Similarly, Reed and Sanders (2008), Litschka and Karmasin (2012), and Heeney (2012) recognize Rawls's place in a liberal social contract tradition alongside Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (p. 1136). Hamlett (2003), Hands (2005), and Brabham (2012) admit his work as representative of certain debates concerning deliberative and participatory democracy.…”