The Ethics of Functional Differentiation: Reclaiming Morality in Niklas Luhmann’s Social Systems Theory

Administration & Society

Roth

Pies

2020

Self Cite

Drawing on Luhmannian social systems theory, this article revisits the single- versus multiple-objective debate on the theory of the firm. Firms are conceptualized as complexity reducing systems structurally coupled with potentially risky environments, and profit maximization is considered as a complexity reduction strategy for making sense of these environments. Whereas single-objective approaches reflect cases when environmental risks do not materialize into corporate sustainability problems, multiple-objective approaches address these problems by increasing the corporation’s environmental responsiveness beyond the profit maximization function. Our systems-theoretic framework therefore identifies the common ground between the two approaches and draws attention to the circumstances under which they can claim validity.

Section: Business Ethics Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Goals in the Theory of the Firm: A Systems Theory View

Administration & Society

Roth

Pies

2020

Self Cite

“…Drawing on Niklas Luhmann's wide-ranging scholarship, this chapter identifies the systems-theoretic arguments that are particularly suited for buttressing the case for the moral complexity of agriculture. Crystallizing these arguments is important because the Luhmannian systems theory seems to have had a somewhat limited influence on the business ethics literature (Valentinov 2019), whereas the systems theory more generally is commonly seen as an integrative approach that could bridge the social and technological dimension of agriculture, and even natural and social sciences (Jansen 2009). Systems theory provided an inspiration for agricultural scientists to undertake a more holistic and interdisciplinary approach (Jansen 2009;Darnhofer et al 2012).…”

Section: A Luhmannian Systems Theory Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Moral Complexity of Agriculture: A Challenge for Corporate Social Responsibility

Olde

2019

J Agric Environ Ethics

Self Cite

Over the past decades, the modernization of agriculture in the Western world has contributed not only to a rapid increase in food production but also to environmental and societal concerns over issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, soil quality and biodiversity loss. Many of these concerns, for example those related to animal welfare or labor conditions, are stuck in controversies and apparently deadlocked debates. As a result we observe a paradox in which a wide range of corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, originally seeking to reconnect agriculture and society, frequently provoke debate, conflict, and protests. In order to make sense of this pattern, the present paper contends that Western agriculture is marked by moral complexity, i.e., the tendency of multiple legitimate moral standpoints to proliferate without the realistic prospect of a consensus. This contention is buttressed by a conceptual framework that draws inspiration the contemporary business ethics and systems-theoretic scholarship. From the systems-theoretic point of view, the evolution of moral complexity is traced back to the processes of agricultural modernization, specialization, and differentiation, each of which suppresses the responsiveness of the economic and legal institutions to the full range of societal and environmental concerns about agriculture. From the business ethics point of view, moral complexity is shown to prevent the transformation of the ethical responsibilities into the legal and economic responsibilities despite the ongoing institutionalization of CSR. Navigating moral complexity is shown to require moral judgments which are necessarily personal and contestable. These judgments are implicated in those CSR initiatives that require dealing with trade-offs among the different sustainability issues.

“…For example, interaction may be found to be a form of segmentation; moral communication may imply forms of stratification; and decision communication may be triggered by and reinforce functional differentiation (Roth, 2017). Another instructive example would be the observation that specific segments feature preferences for particular function systems (Roth et al, 2017; Will, Roth, & Valentinov, 2017): for example, for-profit firms tend to have a strong economy focus, whereas a government is normally defined by a certain bias to political issues, and hospitals are, or used to be, mainly focused on health.…”

Section: Luhmann’s Systems-theoretic Thinkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Theory: A Luhmannian Perspective

Administration & Society

Roth

Will

2018

Self Cite

We explore the cross-fertilization potential between stakeholder theory and Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory. Social systems, such as corporations or nonprofits, are defined by complexity reduction and operational closure, which may render them insensitive to their environment and undermine their sustainability. This vision resonates with stakeholder theory’s arguments on the importance of the corporate responsiveness to stakeholder interests. The suggested common ground between the theories yields novel insights into key concepts of stakeholder theory such as the contrast between the jointness of stakeholder interests and trade-off thinking, the normativity of the stakeholder idea, and the meaning of corporate social responsibility.