corporate social responsibilty and branding

Business ethics from a post-traditional perspective:

a research design for a holistic brand theory

Presented at the

Business as an Agent of World Benefit

Management Knowledge Leading Positive Change

A Global Forum

October 22-25, 2006

Cleveland, Ohio - USA

Conveners

Academy of Management

United Nations Global Compact

Case Weatherhaed School of Management

Manuel Demetz and Oswin Maurer: Business ethics from a post-traditional perspective, page 2

Business ethics from a post-traditional perspective:

a research design for a holistic brand theory

Manuel Demetz and Prof. Oswin Maurer

Abstract

The ongoing discussion about business ethics, synthesized by the

paradigm of corporate social responsibility, represents a substantial

domain to consider further research for a holistic brand theory. From a

management perspective, a theory of business ethics is mainly

concerned about the evaluation and legitimization of corporate

strategies and thus corporate behaviour. In business ethics, the construct

of the »corporative actor« is used to describe the ethical aspects of

corporate behaviour. The aim of this paper is to introduce the construct

of »brand« into business ethics. Brand can be considered as a »post-

traditional subject« for describing the ethical behaviour of corporations

and are highly correlated to the identity of corporations. The paper

shows that the concept of brand as a »post-traditional subject« leads to a

culturalistic perception of the ethical problem, whereas the creation of

identities plays a fundamental role. Accordingly identities play an

important role in CSR theory because identities follow a kind of

meaning transfer approach. Thus – prior to the traditional view of ethics

as a rational coordination problem – a post-traditional perspective in

ethics is concerned about the input factors of identities.

The call for integration of business in society demands an improvement

of the quality of strategic management decisions by focusing on both,

economic and social issues. This creates a more complex decision

framework for managers. This paper tries to identify relevant issues

allowing to proceed towards a positive theory of corporate social

responsibility. The paper is indented to provide an interdisciplinary


overview about relevant factors that may improve convergence of the

paradigms of corporate social responsibility and branding.

Authors

Manuel Demetz (30) is contract researcher at the School of Economics

and Management, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (Italy) for

Corporate Social Responsibility and Strategic Advisor for Total Identity

bv, an international design and consulting agency for corporate identity

management and corporate design. After his degree in Economics at the

Free University in Bozen-Bolzano he specializes in CSR research. His

main interest is in finding systematic linkages between general

philosophical aspect of ethics, organizational behaviour and

communications. Manuel Demetz has international consulting

experiences and works actually as a PhD researcher to obtain

professorial dissertation. Languages: German, Italian and English.

Email: [email protected]

Oswin Maurer (48) is professor of Marketing at the School of

Economics and Management and Dean of the Faculty at the Free

University of Bozen-Bolzano. After his PhD in Economics at the

University of Resources Sciences, Vienna he worked as a professor in

Europe and Australia. Oswin Maurer is referee for international

journals, external PhD examiner and editorial board member. Further he

works as an advisor to governments and government agencies in Europe

and Australia on international competitiveness and competition

(mergers, anti-trust) and advisor to Business Schools and Universities in

Europe on MBA and Exec-MBA programme development, international

programme accreditation and programme implementation. As a

consultant he worked for international companies on international


market entry strategies, strategy implementation and sustainability in

global business. Languages: German, English. Email: [email protected]


Introduction

The establishment of normative principles for managerial decision-

making can be considered as one of the most important aspects for

advancements in developing a positive corporate social responsibility

(CSR) theory (Habisch, 2006). Under these circumstances, the ethical

question characterises one of the fundamental issues in research.

According to the analysis of Lockett, Moon and Visser (2006) business

ethics is one of the four focal points in the actual corporate social

responsibility discussion1.

Next to the actual corporate social responsibility discussion, the

phenomenon of brand poses an interesting paradigm to draw new ideas

for creating methodical contexts towards an interdisciplinary oriented

management-research. Fan (2005) remarks that the notion of brand has

not yet been considered in the established business ethics literature. On

the other hand, the leading branding literature omits the evidence of

ethical aspects, despite the paradoxical situation, that the more

successful a brand, the more important ethical issues become for

management.

The argumentation in this paper follows a sociological based

understanding of the ethical problem that leads, compared to a formal-

rational analysis of the ethical problem in decision-making, to a more

culturalistic dimension. From a managerial perspective, brand could be

considered as a fundamental topic of analysis within CSR.

1 In addition to business ethics, the main discussions within a corporate social responsibility

framework are ecology, social responsibility and stakeholder theory (Lockett, Moon and Visser, 2006)


In recent discussions about business ethics there is common consent

about the fact that moral problems of business practice are the primary

impetus of the evolvement of business ethics as an independent science

(König, 2005). On the basis of a culturalistic understanding of morality

it is essential, next to the construct of the »corporative actor«, to

establish brand as »post-traditional subject« into CSR theory.

Brand as a subject and source of identity

There are different indications that social functions can be attributed to

the brand (Hellmann, 2003; Tropp, 2004; Fan, 2005; Demetz, 2005).

This perception results in a new understanding of the construct »brand«

in different scientific disciplines. From the traditional role of brands – to

only mark products – to branding theories oriented towards the

personality-principle, there has been a constant evolution in the role and

understanding of brands. Nowadays, the actual communication

imperative and the social implications2 characterize an up-to-date

understanding of brands. Some research approaches assign systemic

aspects to the brand, whereas communication and reputation – as

specific form of communication – characterize the systemic denotation.

Otte [1993] defines the brand as a social being, which is, as an integral

system, in continuous interexchange with the environment. This system

has the need for self-preservation and expansion as well and it is able to

homogenize the behaviour of all concerned. Brand takes a position

between the social and economic dimension and, as a socio-economic

construct, influences behaviour. Finally, brand as the expressive output

of an organisation becomes a relevant factor to analyze the behaviour of

an organisation3, with a focus on communicative aspects. The

2 The social function of brands is characterized by the fact not only communication about brands

exists, but also communication through brands (Hellmann, 2003). 3 According to Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Acting (1995) communication and behaviour are

highly correlated and fundamental for the analysis of social behaviour.


perception of brands in advertisements is following a meaning-transfer-

approach which perpetually shows »how to think, how to be and how to

live our lives« and it has become a widely accepted dogma (Hellmann,

2003). The fact that CSR cannot be reduced to advertisements only does

not diminish the importance of the brand; in fact it is an indicator for the

increasing complexity of communication and interaction of the brand at

the corporate level.

With regard to CSR, the focal point is not the marketing aspect of

brands, but the brand as a »symbolic code« that reflects corporate

behaviour and provides for a source of identity. The concept of building

identity can be viewed as a continuing process of meaning-construction,

based on cultural attributes, whereas in this process cultural attributes

have a higher priority than other sources of meaning. Identities are

powerful and construct interests, values and projects and provide for a

strong nexus to culture, nature, geography and history as well (Castells,

2003). According to Castells, the power of identities is based on the

underlying information-codes and the pictographic production.

From managerial point of view, this expressive function can be

attributed to the brand and it often absorbs the identity of an

organisation (Olins, 2000). Furthermore, the Brand can be considered as

a collective social actor and a »subject« for identity. This is used as a

starting point for analyzing how brand as a subject of identity can

methodologically be fitted into CSR.

CSR, the normative challenge and the role of identity

Lockett, Moon and Visser (2006) point at ethics playing a central role in

CSR. The basic question is how to design a decision-making framework

for strategic management that, based on the tradition of ethical


reasoning, focuses on normative principles. The challenge in developing

a combined theory of brand and CSR is not only to support management

decisions, but also in gaining legitimisation for corporate behaviour

(Brink, 2000). Problems of legitimisation always reflect the normative

acceptance of strategies and regularities (Ulrich, 1999) and require a

qualitative oriented evaluation method.

According to economic theory, the criteria for incentives and for the

evaluation of decision-making processes should be based on efficiency.

This perception is in contrast to the concept of ethics where criteria

primarily reflect moral principles. An interpretation of efficiency,

maximising self-interest and applying the principle of functional-

rationality4 does not correspond with the ethical tradition, neither to

theories of Kant nor to Utilitarianism (Gesang, 2003).

The emergence of criticism against a purely quantitative model for

strategic decision-making based on rational-economic5 principles is

prominently represented by Mintzberg [1984], Simon [1987] and Stacey

[1993]. Extensive critique of a pure rational-economic decision making

frameworks is prevalent in Europe. The idea that corporate acting has to

follow social relevant rules and cannot be reduced to efficiency criteria

only represents the common statement of European scholars (Brooks,

4 Functional-rationality is the key-issue for analyzing the complex concept of rationality (concept of

practical-rationality). Max Weber introduced the aspect of technique for describing the rationality of

behaviour with technique describing the well-regulated use of certain instruments in abstractive forms.

Weber has designed a concept of rationality based on the aspects of instruments, preference-setting

and value-orientation, with the instrumental-rationality of behaviour describing the effectiveness of

planning by given preferences, and the rationality of choice valuing the accuracy of utility-calculation by

given instruments and given exogenous factors. Furthermore, the normative-rationality of behaviour

indicates the unifying and systematising power and penetrance of the value-principles that form the

range of desirable preferences. Actions that fulfil the aspects of instrumental-rationality and rationality

of choice are denoted as functional-rational (Habermas, 1995). 5 In economic theory this critique is summarized by the concept of bounded-rationality. The hypothesis

expressly states the fact that the process of decision-making is characterised by limited cognitive

capabilities of human beings and thus only restricted or bounded rational (Bourgoine, 2004).


2005). Therefore, the main challenge in CSR is to strengthen normative

analysis between established shareholder and stakeholder positions6.

Brooks (2005) analyses different definitions for corporate social

responsibility and finally defines CSR “as the obligation for an

organization to be a contributing member to society by maximizing the

positive impacts and minimizing the negative effects.” Furthermore this

obligation has to address the long-term desires and needs of society. The

maximisation of positive impacts of an organisation on society as a

strategic target for management emphasizes the importance of ethical

aspects in decision-making.

According to the inherent rationale of the corporate social responsibility

paradigm, research-approaches need to follow a more holistic

perspective. Consequently, any research should be concerned with the

strategic importance of CSR to achieve sustainable competitive

advantages for the overall organisation (Brooks, 2005).

A similar argumentation also holds for the notion of identity in an

organisational context. The criterion of sustainable competitive

advantage for CSR is strongly correlated to the criterion of rareness of

identity. Asforth and Mael [1996] define the identity of an organisation

as a scheme that is closely related to core competencies, which reflects

the central, differentiable and enduring aspects of an organisation and it

enables management to identify opportunities for growth and

innovation. But, it also creates a trade-off, since options that are outside

the range of the identity cannot be realized. To be able to create

economic value in such a situation, the value of the realized

opportunities has to be greater than the value of forgone opportunities.

6 See also Schmidt, 2002; Brink, 2000; Sihler, 2000


If this condition does not hold, identity does not provide for a positive

contribution to the organization.

Applying the criteria of sustainable competitive advantage and holistic

orientation from identity management to the concept of brand, the

traditional market7 oriented approach does not work efficiently (Barney

and Stewart, 2000). Thus, the concept of identity has a more internally

oriented strategic focus and can rather be attributed to the resource-

based-view than to the traditional marketing view.

From a managerial perspective, there is not much evidence on the input-

factors of organisational identity. Birkigt, Stadler and Funck (2003)

refer to it as a black box with the main input-factors behaviour,

corporate design and communication. Their approach partly also reflects

the aspect of symbolism8, which Castells (2003) terms to be central for

identities.

A CSR oriented management approach could only result in the expected

positive reputation when effective brand communication takes place. At

the time, only corporations with brands enjoying high brand awareness

become targets of public concern and moral appeals (Coulter and de

Man, 2005). According to this positive correlation between brand and

social responsibility it seems to be reasonable to bring both paradigms

together in order to get closer to the objective of the CSR discussion: to

improve the linkages between business and society. The concept of

identity allows to create a methodologically link between brand and

CSR from an organisational point of view, providing for a way to show

7 A speeding-up of market dynamics with an ongoing concentration of markets would eventually not

fulfil the criterion of endurance. 8 According to Castells (2003) the instances that induce identities and hence change the actual

cultural codes have to mobilize symbols.


how identity may fit into positive theory and how it may fulfil the

normative aspects claimed by CSR.

CSR, ethics and morality

In contrast to the natural-rights-theory economists have developed a

decision-making system that is primarily based on functions and not on

normative aspects. Economics, as a political science, is concerned with

the problems of society in an overall context by focusing on the

question of how the dynamics of an economic system are related to

normative regularities in society. With the evolvement of economics as

a special branch of science this relationship between economy and

society was lost (Habermas, 1995).

The ethical tradition in economics goes back to the Aristotelian theory

of ethics. Ethics and engineering9 historically provided for the pillars of

economic theory, whereas in modern economic theory the issue of

ethics has lost in importance. In recent economic analysis an explicit

normative analysis has been strictly avoided (Sen, 1987). A capitalistic

and market oriented economy does not neutralize the normative

problem, which still does exist, but the system is organized in a way that

the problem solving exercise is transferred to the individual (Koslowski,

1996).

The numerous contributions to the ethical problem, summarized by the

concept of CSR and corporate citizenship in the last years, could be

identified as an attempt to revitalize the normative discussion to achieve

an appropriate integration of the economic system in society. The

9 The notion of engineering refers to the approach that is primarily characterized by logistics issues

rather than ultimate ends. This engineering approach has come from different directions and is

especially connected with the functioning of markets (Sen, 1987)


emerging need of normative integration is related to the constant decline

of social structures that fulfilled those normative functions. Functional

differentiation in modern society is one of the most eminent factors

causing this decline10. In return, the economization of different spheres

of human life can be considered as a continuing process at a global

scale. According to Homann, economic theory may become a kind of

supra-theory for explaining decision-making process and thus

completely absorb the role of traditional ethics (Koslowski, 2001).

One of the main concerns of ethics in decision-making processes is

morality, which in a broader sense is a social concept and, similar to the

legal system of society, describes a complex system of collective,

individual and group-specific beliefs and attitudes that regulate

behaviour. Initially, individuals assume this system to be something

strictly objective and they get familiar with it during the process of

socialisation and interaction. Individuals perceive the normative

function of moral principles as something that is exogenous and, in

contrast to the legal system, the fact of subjective impression is more

important (Birnbacher, 2003). Morality is an inter-subjective necessity

and the justification of moral principles becomes relevant in those

historical moments, when moral convictions loose the value having

been attributed to them in the underlying social and cultural context

(Tugendhat, 1984).

White (2004) and Sen (1977) assume agents to may follow various

hierarchies of preferences. Moral aspects are characterizing the set of

individual preferences for decision-making, as well as suggested by the

utility maximising theory of rational-choice. From an analytical

10

According to Luhmann, it is likely for morality to become a more and more marginal aspect in a

modern, functional-differentiated society. Presently, there are still various attempts to introduce the

principle of morality to assure continuity of the single functional systems in society. But compared to


perspective, the identification of moral aspects raises a lot of difficulties

because moral specific terms, sanctions and emotions can only be

described through the same concept of morality. Representatives of the

universalistic concept of morality tend to use the criteria of action-

related, categorical principle, generality and universality as the main

parameters for describing morality (Birnbacher, 2003).

Identity and communicative aspects of morality

Although in sociology the ethical discussion has never been a dominant

issue, important innovations in ethical thinking have emerged from the

influence of social theorists and social philosophers11. According to

Reckwitz (2001), a reflection of social aspects cannot be fruitful if it

does not include concerns about the meaning of morality and the

relative social practice. The erosion of morality in modern society is the

outcome of formal rationalization, according to Max Weber’s theory

and the ongoing process of functional differentiation12. Morality has lost

its function of creating social cohesion (Reckwitz, 2001).

Starting from this one-way view, there has been a growing interest in

introducing an »alternative« concept of morality, which has to be

comprehensible in philosophical terms and fit sociological analysis as

well. As an alternative to the predominant Utilitarian and Kantian

conception of morality, this so-called “third” definition of morality

focuses on a culturalistic definition of the moral problem in contrast to

the situation in stratified societies, morality has lost its importance. Nowadays, morality is socially

parasitic (Reckwitz, 2001). 11

e.g. Theory of Justice [Rawls], Discoursive Ethics [Habermas], Political Philosophy [Nozick],

Communitarism [Nussbaum and Walzer], Neopragmatism [Rorty] and the late-work of Foucault,

Derrida and Bauman (Reckwitz, 2001) 12

Prominent representatives are the sociologists Durkheim, Parson, Luhmann (Rechwitz, 2001)


the formal-rational oriented analysis13. Ultimately, morality is linked to

the problem of collective and individual identity (Reckwitz, 2001).

Morality does not only care about general rules concerning the do’s and

don’ts in society, it focuses on the valuable sources of meaning that

shape the common patterns of lifestyle in society. Furthermore, morality

describes the cultural specific dimension of »what is good«, which

creates the background for the apparently neutral principle of justice

(Reckwitz, 2001).

Moral questions become relevant, when actors try to give a meaning to

their life and consequently behave in a way so that they can succeed in

creating an identity by making use of symbolic and valuable codes.

Moral problems are problems of individual and collective identity and

thus are prior to all problems of rational action-coordination. The

problem emerges when actors ask themselves to which kind of lifestyle

their self-image may correspond (Rechwitz, 2001).

The problem of morality is closly related to the problem of

communication: morality is not a pure abstract and a rational notion, but

a social interexchange. Thus, ethical analysis is not only normative

thinking, but also normative rhetoric (Jensen, 2001). Moral

communication differentiates between what is admissible and what is

not admissible. In contrast to the rationalisation strategies in economics,

it is the claim of moral communication to create a common awareness

on how situations of advantage/disadvantage could be avoided. In the

end, situations demanding negotiations of to the Coase-Teorem type

would not be relevant. A common objection against a rationalisation of

13

Utilitarianism and Kant’s ethic appear to be contradictionary traditions of ethics in first instance, but

both ethical concept assume that the problem of morality is a problem of action-coordination of free

individuals (Reckwitz, 2001). This perception corresponds with the Coase-Teorem that is concerned

with the negative externalities as an effect of different preference-settings (Priddat, 2000).


morality is based on the fact that moral behaviour can evoke further

moral behaviour. Thus, the relationship between morality and

economies should not be taken as a behavioural restriction, but as a

production process that enables organisations to create new moral

insights. The claim for explicit communication of moral behaviour is

the main difference to rationalisation strategies14 and the expressive

aspect of morality can be considered as a source of innovation (Priddat,

2000).

From this perspective, the expressive output of morality can be

attributed to the brand15. Since brand is an interface between the identity

of the organization16 and the identity of the market17 (Hellmann 2003),

the expressive function of brand determines the moral aspects.

Furthermore, Hellmann (2003) argues that this model of structural

linkage finds a significant echo in brand research. In this context, the

identity of an organisation constitutes an interesting factor with regard

to the normative problem of managerial practice. However, an ethical

theory concerned with identity has to be able to conceptualize morality

primarily as a parameter of distinctiveness and consequently identity,

and not with normative aspects based on traditional ethics (Corsi, 1997).

14

In the context of this analysis it is not possible to deepen this argument. However, it would be

interesting to confront the «Theory of Communicative Acting« of Habermas with the Coase-Teorem to

obtain new insights into communication and rationalisation within an organisational framework. 15

See also Gustafsson (2000) 16

According to Castells (2003) the primary sources of meaning for social actors are formed by

collective identities. 17

For the corporate brand the market is represented by all stakeholder: customers, management,

employees, financial markets, etc.


Conclusion

What is the importance of identity, code and expressive function of

morality as a productive output for CSR? Going back to the starting

point, the problem of ethics, and consequently morality, is one of the

central issues in CSR. In business ethics the concept of the »collective

actor« is used for describing the ethical behaviour of organisations,

whereas the »collective actor« is embedded in the context of market

competition (Suchanek, 2001; Haase, 2006). However, this construct

shows fundamental deficiencies in its ability to describe moral

behaviour, since it is possible to attribute action but not behavioural

consciousness to »collectives« (Birnbacher, 2003).

The extension of the idea of brand as a »post-traditional subject« allows

for a different perception of moral problems in business practice. Ethics

itself has to be refocused: from a formal-rational oriented analysis to an

identity, cultural-oriented approach. This allows for integration of brand

into the CSR paradigm and allows to evolve towards the development

of positive theory. The term post-traditional is used due to the fact that

the problem of ethics is primarily identity based and not normative as

suggested in traditional ethics.

In sociological studies a growing interest for the ideas of identity and

en-/decoding is prevalent. Particularly new evolvements in system-

theory provide important contributions for further research. The main

background for actual discussions builds on the theories of Luhmann.

The methodical discourse in system-theory itself is highly abstract and it

has not been developed properly in a managerial context. Further

research efforts could be very fruitful, since communication plays a

central role in system-theory and it would allow to create a link to brand

and identity aspects as well. Furthermore, the idea of autopoiesis as a


central paradigm in system-theory could be linked to evolutionary-

theories18 in management and economics.

Finally, more research into the post-traditional aspect of brand is

needed, whereas the primary focus should be on the definition of basic

cultural and economic concepts from a managerial perspective. In this

context, CSR research may need to focus more on identity,

encoding/decoding, communication and symbolism and not only on

normative aspects. The system-theoretical framework could be an

interesting perspective for developing an integrative and holistic view of

CSR theory.

In addition, the dynamics stemming from the CSR discussion should be

beneficial for overall cultural and societal development. Thus, the

problem of ethics and its practical aspects should not lead to a one-way

street. In a »new« society also an old problem like morality needs

methods and instruments that are more than a renaissance of the

established theories of Utilitarianism and Kant.

18

As admitted representatives of the evolutionary concept in management is Malik (St. Gallener

School) and in economics are Nelson and Winter.


References

Barney, Jay B and Stewart, Alice C. (2000), Organizational Identity as Moral

Philosophy: Competitive Implications for Diversified Corporations, in: The Expressive

Organization (Eds. Schultz. M et. al.), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Birkigt, Klaus; Stadler, Marinus M. and Funck, Hans J. (2002), Corporate Identity –

Grundlagen, Funktionen, Fallbeispiele, Heidelberg: Redline Wirtschaft

Birnbacher, Dieter (2003), Analytische Einführung in die Ethik, Berlin/NewYork:

Walter de Gruyter

Bourgine, Paul (2004), What is Cognitive Economics? in: Coginitive Economics – An

Interdisciplinary Approach (Eds. Bourgine, P. and Nadal, J. P.), Berlin/Heidelberg:

Springer Verlag

Brink. Alexander (2000), Holistsiches Shareholder-Value-Management: eine

regulative Idee für globales Management in ethischer Verantwortung, Mering: Rainer

Hampp Verlag

Brooks, Simon (2005), Corporate Social Responsibility and strategic management: the

prospects for converging discourses, Journal of Strategic Change, Nov, 401-411

Castells, Manuel (2003), Die Macht der Identität – Das Informationszeitalter II,

Opladen: Leske und Budrich

Corsi, Giancarlo (1997), Moral, in: Glossar zu Niklas Luhmanns Theorie sozialer

Systeme (Eds. Baraldi, C. et. al), Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp Wissenschaft

De Man, Fremke and Coulter, Chris (Spt 2005), Corporate social responsibility and its

impact on corporate reputation, Brand Strategy, 40-41


Demetz, Manuel (2005), Die Bedeutung der Unique Communication Proposition für

die strategische Unternehmensführung, Bozen: Thesis, Free University of Bozen-

Bolzano

Fan, Ying (2005), Ethical branding and corporate reputation, International Journal of

Corporate Communication, Vol. 10, No 4

Gesang, Bernards (2003), Eine Verteidigung des Utilitarismus, Stuttgart: Philipp

Reclam jun.

Gustaffson, Clara (2005), Trust as an instance of asymmetrical reciprocity: an ethics

perspective on corporate brand management, Business Ethics: A European Review

Vol. 14, No 2, 142-149

Haase, Michaela (2006), Wirtschaftethik und Betriebswirtschaftslehre: Zur Integration

der Perspektiven aus wissensorientierter Sicht, in: Wirtschaftsethische Perspektiven

VIII. (Eds. Ebert, U.), Berlin: Duncker & Humblot

Habermas, Jürgen (1995), Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Band 1)

Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp

Wissenschaft

Habisch, Andre (2006), Bologna Process, CSR Education and fundamental science,

Catholic University of Eichstätt, EABIS Conference, Ingolstadt, March

Hellmann, Kai-Uwe (2003), Soziologie der Marke, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp

Wissenschaft

Jensen, Hans Siggaard (2001), Unternehmensethik – die Kopenhager Schule, in:

Wirtschaftethik – Wo ist die Philosophie? (Eds. Koslowski, P.), Heidelberg: Physica

Verlag

Koslowski, Peter (1996), Ethics of Capitalism and Critique of Sociobiology,

Berlin/New York: Springer Verlag


Koslowski, Peter (2001) Warum die Philosophie die Ökonomie nicht nur den

Ökonomen überlassen kann, in: Wirtschaftethik – Wo ist die Philosophie? (Eds.

Koslowski, P.), Heidelberg: Physica Verlag

König, Matthias (2002), Was kann Unternehmensethik konkret bedeuten?, in:

Unternehmensethik konkret (Eds. König, M and Schmidt, M.), Wiesbaden:

Gabler Verlag

Lockett, Andy; Moon, Jeremy and Visser, Wayne (2006), Corporate Social

Responsibility in Management Research: Focus, Nature, Salience and Sources of

Influence, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 43, No 1, 115-136

Olins, Wally (2000), How Brands are Taking over the Corporations, in: The

Expressive Organization (Eds. Schultz. M. et. al), Oxford: Oxford University Press

Priddat, Birger P. (2000), Ökonomie, Moral und Rationalität. Eine skeptische

Betrachtung, in: Unternehmung, Gesellschaft und Ethik (Eds. Hungenberg, H and

Schwetzler, B.), Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag

Reckwitz, Andreas (2001), Ethik des Guten, in: Gute Gesellschaft? Zur Konstruktion

sozialer Ordnungen. Verhandlungen des 21. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft

für Soziologie in Köln 2000, Band A, (Eds. Allmendinger, J.): Opladen: Leske und

Budrich

Schmidt, Matthias (2002), Effektive Unternehmensethik – vom Modell zu konkreten

Schritten, in: Unternehmensethik konkret (Eds. König, M. and Schmidt, M.),

Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag

Sen, Amartya (1997), Rational fools: A critique of the behaviour foundations of

economic theory, Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs Vol. 6, 317-344

Sen, Amartya (1987), On Ethics and Economics, Blackwell Publishing


Sihler, Helmuth (2000), Shareholder Value versus Stakeholder Value, in:

Unternehmung, Gesellschaft und Ethik (Eds. Hungenberg, H. Schwetzler, B.)

Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag

Suchanek, Andreas (2001), Ökonomische Ethik, Tübingen: UTB für Wissenschaft

Tropp, Jürgen (2004), Markenmanagement – Markenführung im

Kommunikationszeitalter, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

Tugendhat, Ernst (1984), Probleme der Ethik, Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun.

Ulrich, Peter (1999), Zum Praxisbezug der Unternehmensethik, in:

Unternehmensführung, Ethik und Umwelt (Eds. Gerd R.), Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag

White, Mark D. (1999), Can homo economicus follow Kant’s categorical imperative?,

The Journal of Socio-Economics Vol. 33, 89-106

corporate social responsibilty and branding

Documents

theory of business ethics

posttraditional perspective

traditional view of

management perspective

corporate design

corporate identity management

integration of business

posttraditional subject