Registering ‘the Ethical’ in Organization Theory Formation: Towards the Disclosure of an ‘Invisible Force’

Abstract

Theory building is conditioned by three registers – the ontological (reality), the epistemological (knowledge) and the ethical (values). The significance of the first two is widely acknowledged. But the third register tends to be overlooked, especially where a positive/normative dichotomy is assumed. Post-positivist thinking problematizes this dichotomy but leaves the ethical register unthematized. The paper addresses this neglect and illustrates the role of the ethical register in processes of theory formation. Attentiveness to the ethical register is seen to invite radical reflection on a dominant, anthropocentric value-orientation, and thereby problematize the institutionalized estrangement of researchers from the ‘objects’ of their analysis and the abstraction of organizations from their embeddedness in the biosphere.

Organising in the Anthropocene: an ontological outline for ecocentric theorising

“…A rather small group of scholars, however, have discussed ecological questions related to organisations (e.g., Shrivastava, 1994;Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995;Purser et al, 1995), some with a focus on the economic organisation (Welford, 1995;Hart, 1995;Clair et al, 1996), for over two decades (for a summary, see Gladwin et al, 1995). More recently, continuations to these pioneering studies have emerged (Valente, 2012;Gosling and Case, 2013;Ezzamel and Willmott, 2014), but large-scale attention to ecological questions in organisation theory yet to come.…”

“…This profound critique of the underlying assumptions of the field led to an opportunity to reconceptualise the organisational environment so that the significance of the non-human world was recognised in explaining and understanding social activity. The centrality of nature became obvious with the realisation that all individuals and organisations, as well as sociocultural and political-economic systems, are embedded in the planetary ecosystem (Starik and Rands, 1995;Ezzamel and Willmott, 2014).…”

“…This insight signifies a shift from atomistic and reductionist ideas to perceiving interconnectedness: all actors in the ecosystems are connected (Valente, 2012;Newton, 2002). Many ecologically oriented organisation scholars have employed the notion of interdependency to describe the relationship between human organisations and the natural environment (Newton, 2002;Valente, 2012;Ezzamel and Willmott, 2014), while others have refrained from the use of the term (e.g., Starik and Rands, 1995;Purser et al, 1995). According to Gladwin et al (1995), this disparity can be explained by a difference in ontological stances.…”

“…While the call was not immediately taken up, a few organisational scholars have recently expressed signs of ecocentric theorising by embedding social actors in the ecosystem (Whiteman and Cooper, 2000), recognising the interconnectedness of all actors in the ecosystem (Valente, 2012;Newton, 2002), and advancing ethical considerations for the non-human world (Gosling and Case, 2013;Ezzamel and Willmott, 2014). Critics of ecocentrism, however, have continued to question the necessity and practicality of ecocentric thought, as well as the underpinnings of its worldview (Hanna, 1996).…”

Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research

“…Some argue, for example, that management activities must be understood as "value creation," by which they mean not only financial value, but also intrinsic values for human flourishing (Donaldson & Walsh 2015;Freeman 1984;York et al 2013;Mahoney & Kor 2015); that management research needs to be re-conceptualized as a humanistic as well as a scientific area of study because many problems in management studies are not value-free issues (Alvesson & Willmott 1992;Ezzamel & Willmott 2014;Melé 2003;Zald 1993); that because business and morality cannot be separated (Freeman 1994(Freeman , 2000Robertson, 1993;Sandberg 2008;Wicks 1996;), epistemology in management research that is not adequately selected for its inherent moral aspect may risk rendering the research morally illegitimate (Donaldson 2012;Wicks & Freeman 1998); and that morally illegitimate ideologies entrenched in management theories result in socially destructive impacts, with the implication that research needs to be more firmly based on an adequate understanding of moral values (Preston 1986;Swanson 1999). …”