IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v24y2014i04p533-563_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participation versus Consent: Should Corporations Be Run according to Democratic Principles?1

Author

Listed:
  • Hielscher, Stefan
  • Beckmann, Markus
  • Pies, Ingo

Abstract

The notion of “democracy†has become a much-debated concept in scholarship on business ethics, management, and organization studies. The strategy of this paper is to distinguish between a principle of organization that fosters participation (type I democracy) and a principle of legitimation that draws on consent (type II democracy). Based on this distinction, we highlight conceptual shortcomings of the literature on stakeholder democracy. We demonstrate that parts of the literature tend to confound ends with means. Many approaches employ type I democracy notions of participation and often take for granted that this also improves type II democratic legitimation. We hold this to be a mistake. We provide examples of the ambiguity of organizational procedures and show that under some circumstances a decrease in the degree of participation may actually increase legitimation because a governance structure that results in higher productivity can provide higher benefits for all parties involved, serve their interests and therefore meet their agreement. Less type I democracy may mean more type II democracy. We believe this to be an important insight for judging (and further improving) the legitimacy of both capitalistic firms and competitive markets.

Suggested Citation

  • Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus & Pies, Ingo, 2014. "Participation versus Consent: Should Corporations Be Run according to Democratic Principles?1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(4), pages 533-563, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:24:y:2014:i:04:p:533-563_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00013233/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vladislav Valentinov & Lioudmila Chatalova, 2016. "Institutional Economics, Social Dilemmas, and the Complexity-Sustainability Trade-off (A response to Hielscher and Pies)," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 488-491, May.
    2. Stefan Hielscher & Bryan W. Husted, 2020. "Proto-CSR Before the Industrial Revolution: Institutional Experimentation by Medieval Miners’ Guilds," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 253-269, October.
    3. Silvia Biraghi & Rossella Gambetti & Stefania Romenti, 2017. "Stakeholder Engagement beyond the Tension between Idealism and Practical Concerns," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(2), pages 1-14, January.
    4. Ingo Pies & Philipp Schreck & Karl Homann, 2021. "Single-objective versus multi-objective theories of the firm: using a constitutional perspective to resolve an old debate," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 779-811, April.
    5. Hielscher, Stefan & Winkin, Jan & Pies, Ingo, 2016. "NGO credibility as private or public good? A governance perspective on how to improve NGO advocacy in public discourse," Discussion Papers 2016-03, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    6. Pies, Ingo, 2022. "30 Jahre Wirtschaftsethik: Zur Entwicklung des ordonomischen Forschungsprogramms," Discussion Papers 2022-02, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    7. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan, 2019. "Fighting corruption: How binding commitments of business firms can help to activate the self-regulating forces of competitive markets," Discussion Papers 2019-04, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    8. Vladislav Valentinov & Stefan Hielscher & Ingo Pies, 2016. "Emergence: A Systems Theory’s Challenge to Ethics," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 597-610, December.
    9. Saskia Crucke & Mirjam Knockaert, 2016. "When Stakeholder Representation Leads to Faultlines. A Study of Board Service Performance in Social Enterprises," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(5), pages 768-793, July.
    10. Stefan Hielscher & Ingo Pies, 2016. "Emergent Social Dilemmas in Modern Society: An Institutional Economics Perspective (A comment on Valentinov and Chatalova)," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 483-487, May.
    11. Will, Matthias Georg, 2015. "Privacy and Big Data: The need for a multi-stakeholder approach for developing an appropriate privacy regulation in the age of Big Data," Discussion Papers 2015-3, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:24:y:2014:i:04:p:533-563_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.