Niklas Luhmann: Soziale Systeme

Reese-Schäfer, Walter

doi:10.1007/978-3-476-04840-0_23

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Generally speaking, this communication “emerges where urgent societal problems come to notice that cannot obviously be solved by means of symbolically generalized communication media and in the corresponding functional systems” (Luhmann, 2012, p. 244). As Reese-Schäfer (1999, p. 130) noted, the complexity of the modern society does not allow all the problems to be solved by legal norms and political decisions, thus creating a potential niche for morality, which may likewise be characterized in terms of its “alarm function” (Gensicke, 1998). Whereas all these standpoints trace morality and moral communication back to the occasional breakdowns in the regime of functional differentiation, the hypocrisy avoidance approach sees the raising of moral claims in the course of CSR communication as a systemic phenomenon.…”

Section: Toward An Integrative Vision Of Csrmentioning

confidence: 99%

CSR as hypocrisy avoidance: a conceptual framework

Jauernig

Valentinov

2019

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The theoretical understanding of CSR is caught on the horns of the dilemma between the ethical and instrumental approaches. The strategic turn in CSR has brought the dilemma to a new head. The purpose of this paper is to develop a novel argumentative strategy to address the dilemma. Design/methodology/approach The paper weaves together the insights from the literatures on sociological institutionalism, organization theory, business ethics and institutional economics to elaborate the distinction between CSR communication and CSR action that is actually undertaken and visible to stakeholders. This distinction is at the core of the “hypocrisy avoidance” approach which puts the above dilemma in a new light. Findings According to the “hypocrisy avoidance” approach, the CSR communication constitutes a competitive arena where corporations are looking for reputational gains. Competitive pressures give rise to an inflationary dynamics of the CSR communication which consequently runs up against credibility problems. These problems are addressed by the real CSR policies which legitimate the corporate employment of the CSR communication as an instrument of competition. Practical implications The theoretical dilemma between the ethical and instrumental approaches manifests itself in the justification of skepticism toward CSR communication. This skepticism, which may be to the detriment of a corporation’s license to operate, may turn out to be a driving force of CSR action. Social implications Despite the charges of corporate hypocrisy, CSR communication may play a role in the alleviation of business-society tensions. This role is however subject to two limitations. First, if CSR communication is used as instrument of competition, it is unlikely to translate into CSR action perfectly. Second, corporations would likely prioritize more visible CSR actions over less visible ones. Originality/value The novel implication of the “hypocrisy avoidance” approach is that CSR actions present credible commitments or “hostages” enabling the productive interaction between corporations and their stakeholders. This implication integrates some of the components of the ethical and instrumental approaches, while drawing inspiration from the institutional economics and institutional ethics literatures.

show abstract

Section: Toward An Integrative Vision Of Csrmentioning

confidence: 99%

CSR as hypocrisy avoidance: a conceptual framework

Jauernig

Valentinov

2019

SAMPJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The focus on the economic functional system shows the limited perspective and also the limited applicability of the economic ES approach (e.g., as politics follow the medium of 'power', not 'money') [23,48,65]. This opens the question as to which new ES approaches could still be developed to irritate further social subsystems (e.g., to irritate the subsystem of politics with an ES approach centered upon power relations [83]).…”

Section: Environmental Risks From a System-theoretical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…An attempt to visualize the development of the ecosystem services framework and its various approaches (1-4) from the perspective of Luhmann's systems theory. For simplicity, only a subset of social subsystems and linkages between components of the social-ecological system are shown (source: Adapted by[79,82,83] (p. 176)).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Key Insights of Sociological Risk Theory into the Ecosystem Services Framework

Peter

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Environmental risks give urgency to the need to understand the society–nature relationship. While the ecosystem services (ES) framework allows analysis of interrelationships between biophysical supply and human demand for natural resources, further research is needed to understand what drives societal demand for ES. Here, I explore how incorporation of the key sociological theories of risk (systems theory, ‘world risk society’, and cultural theory of risk) can advance this understanding. By examining these theories, the following key insights were identified: (1) A deeper understanding of societal structures and risk perception helps to understand culturally driven patterns of ES demand; (2) sociological ES research must use inter- and transdisciplinary methods to understand the drivers of ES demand and risk perception. It must also link this understanding to the natural sciences’ knowledge of the drivers of ES supply if it is to identify new instruments of environmental governance; (3) while anthropocentric in character, the ES framework, especially one that is modified by the concept of risk, enables society to reflect on its role as a proactive part of a social–ecological system, rather than a passive victim of nature’s whims. This change in perspective may prove to be a key step in achieving sustainable development.

show abstract

“…In the corporate context, this communication may also be insincere (Roth, 2013, 2014). Yet, Luhmann’s presentation of moral communication as person-centered is possibly reductionist (Reese-Schäfer, 1999, p. 129) and leaves little room for acknowledging ecological degradation and other forms of precarious system-environment relations as moral problems (Valentinov, 2015c).…”

Section: A Luhmannian Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Wiener and Luhmann on feedback: from complexity to sustainability

Valentinov

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The rise of the general systems theory in the twentieth century would not have been possible without the concept of feedback. Of special interest to the present paper is Niklas Luhmann’s reconstruction and critique of Wiener’s cybernetic approach to the feedback concept. Luhmann has suggested that the operation of the feedback-controlled systems potentially poses problems of sustainability. The purpose of this paper is to explore this suggestion in more detail. Design/methodology/approach The reconstruction of the arguments of Luhmann and Wiener shows that both scholars approached the feedback concept from the “system-environment” perspective. Luhmann takes system-environment relations to be inherently precarious. Wiener underscores the importance of the sensitivity of the feedback-controlled systems to their environment. Findings Drawing on Norbert Wiener’s and Niklas Luhmann’s ideas, the paper shows that every specification of the feedback mechanism implies the drawing of the moral boundary that demarcates those parts of the environment to which the relevant system is sensitive from those to which it is not. A likely outcome of this boundary drawing is the maintenance of intra-systemic complexity at the cost of the deteriorating sustainability of the system in its environment. Originality/value Until today, the general system theory has sought to explain organized complexity and rightly underscored the role of feedback in maintaining it, thereby inadvertently creating the chasm between the complexity and sustainability dimensions of human civilization. The present paper pleads for reorienting of the systems-theoretic analysis of the feedback concept toward closing this chasm.

show abstract

Niklas Luhmann: Soziale Systeme

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

CSR as hypocrisy avoidance: a conceptual framework

CSR as hypocrisy avoidance: a conceptual framework

Integrating Key Insights of Sociological Risk Theory into the Ecosystem Services Framework

Wiener and Luhmann on feedback: from complexity to sustainability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About