Within the large, heterogeneous body of studies on management and organization, the question of responsibility linked to company actions has been approached more or less explicitly. Over time, too, the sensitivity to the theme of organizational responsibility has largely evolved. While it is not a new trend, a number of authors have long emphasized the relationship between responsibility, organizations, and management. Drucker (1973), in particular, believed that managers of major institutions, and especially of business, must be accountable for the common good; otherwise, no one else would take on this task. Reflecting on his 1977 notes, Prahalad (2010) recalls that a responsible manager must “assume responsibility for outcomes as well as for the processes and people you work with.” Such considerations seem even more crucial in this era of profound uncertainty, large-scale globalization, and somewhat contradictory expectations regarding the social, economic, environmental and political responsibilities of major corporations.
Some Challenging Questions Regarding Organizations’ Responsibility
All organizations, whether public or private, are expected to be managed in order to carry out their mission in accordance with the expectations and interests of their main stakeholders. If management can be defined as a set of processes and methods used to pilot any form of organization (Fayol 1949; Mintzberg 1973; Thietart 2012), it can also be broken down into a wide variety of modalities, from comprehensive and meaningful approaches to technocratic and dehumanized tools that likely cause a loss of meaning or dignity for workers (Kostera and Pirson 2017). All of these different approaches could be considered forms of management, with some being quite responsible and others more unaccountable. Furthermore, they can be found in market enterprises and in public and non-profit activities.
The managerial vocabulary used to discuss the issues of corporate responsibility, and more broadly the responsibility of all organizations, is plural and fluctuates according to the time period and the country (Hermel and Bartoli 2013). Current discussions appear to focus on the umbrella term of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The idea of CSR generally depicts the following: beyond their mission and the specific behavior of their employees, organizations must also consider the external consequences of their behaviors and activities on society as a whole. In general, CSR covers principles relating to human rights, labor and employment practices, environmental issues, and anti-corruption policies. The social responsibility of an organization is then expressed vis-à-vis all stakeholders who may be affected by its activity. Even if it is inclusive and open, CSR has become standardized and results in some supposedly universal objectives and criteria.
In time, these notions have become norms taken up in the speeches and activities of companies. They are implicitly considered to be “good practices,” actions that are necessary to meet the challenges and stakes of contemporary societies. But they are not always based on simple, fundamental reflections that consider why and for what the organization needs to be “responsible.” Indeed, why should any organization take on more responsibility beyond the sum responsibilities of its members, and particularly its leaders?
The very essence of what constitutes an organization implies collective responsibility. To function smoothly, organizations require the coordination of employees’ actions toward a common goal, thus allowing for an organization’s actions to exceed the value of individual actions. In turn, a company’s collective character dilutes the possibility of individual culpability, and its responsibility to society mainly derives from its character as a collective actor.
Identifying Some Origins of the Concept of Responsibility for Organizations
Even though the subject has become a certain fad as of late, in reality the reasoning is not as new as it appears. It is necessary to consider social responsibility alongside two types of older organizational philosophies—one related to social concerns in the industrial sector, the other to the societal roles of companies.
Regarding the social considerations of the business world, Gond and Igalens (2018) return to historical literature on corporate philanthropy during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The culture among some American businessmen evoked a type of “industrial paternalism” whereby employers sought to create a loyal and peaceable workforce through social policies close to the philosophy of CSR. One can also link these themes to the work of Hyacinthe Dubreuil (1934), who advocated organizational methods that could lead workers to assume broader and more rewarding responsibilities within their workplace.
The other consideration is the societal role of companies, that is, their place and impact in society. The work of Howard Bowen (1953) is often regarded as the cornerstone of this approach. He developed the idea of “the obligations of businessmen to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action that are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen 1953). Subsequent scholars began to favor a more holistic notion of corporate responsibility. For instance, Archie B. Carroll (1979) proposed a comprehensive take on CSR through the four levels of a “pyramid.” The base represented the economic responsibilities of a business and its obligation to be productive and profitable. The second level referred to the legal responsibilities of companies to fulfill their economic duties in accordance with the law. The third level described ethical responsibility, or established and fair codes of conduct. And finally, the fourth and top level denoted philanthropic responsibilities, which reflected the involvement of companies in improving the overall wellbeing of society.
During the 1970s, many governments and companies implemented social policies in line with these theories. For instance, several legislations led to the creation of environmental protection procedures and occupational safety organizations in the US and Europe. Among the most notable examples include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the US. Some large companies, like Danone in France, began to implement socio-economic strategies in order to combine profitability with safe working conditions (Riboud 2014).
Heeding this movement, R. Edward Freeman (1984) coined the famous notion of “stakeholder.” Developed in reference to the term “shareholder,” the term “stakeholder” attempts to account for all of the socio-economic and political actors of the business environment. It expands a business’s typical economic and financial reach to social, political, and societal sectors. Such sectors are arguably supposed to contribute to the economic and social performance of the company and must be taken into account in the company’s strategic management process (Ansoff 1980). In this regard, the company acts as a socio-political organization engaged in ongoing conflict-cooperation relatio...
