IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/pal/intecp/978-0-230-30211-2_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

A Rawlsian View of CSR and the Game Theory of its Implementation (Part II): Fairness and Equilibrium

In: Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Lorenzo Sacconi

Abstract

This is the second part of an comprehensive essay of the Rawlsian view of corporate social responsibility (CSR thereafter) understood as an extended model of corporate governance and objective function, based on the extension of fiduciary duties owed to the sole owner of the firm to all the company stakeholder (for this definition see part I, Sacconi, 2010a, infra). As in the first part, CSR is also understood as a self-sustaining institution - i.e. as a self-sustaining system of descriptive and normative beliefs consistent with the equilibrium behaviors performed repeatedly by agents in the domain of action of corporate governance (firms and their stakeholders). But equilibria are multiple in the game representing the strategic interaction among the firm and its stakeholders - modeled as a repeated trust game or some similar ‘social dilemma game’ (Ostrom, 1990). Thus asserting that CSR satisfies the Nash equilibrium condition as an institution is not enough. There is also an equilibrium selection problem. This the place where the Rawlsian social contract (Rawls, 1971, 1993) enters again the picture by performing its main role as normative equilibrium selection device from the ex ante perspective: that is, the ex ante impartial selection of a unique equilibrium amongst the many possible in the repeated trust game involving the firms and its stakeholders. Note that this was its second role previously suggested (see section 5 part I, and left to this part where it is treated at length), as distinguished from the role of shaping the players’ expectations so that in the ex post perspective they are able to predict the agreed solution as the result of a cognitive process of beliefs convergence to the equilibrium, which is focused on in part III, (see Sacconi, 2011 and Sacconi 2008).

Suggested Citation

  • Lorenzo Sacconi, 2011. "A Rawlsian View of CSR and the Game Theory of its Implementation (Part II): Fairness and Equilibrium," International Economic Association Series, in: Lorenzo Sacconi & Margaret Blair & R. Edward Freeman & Alessandro Vercelli (ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, chapter 8, pages 194-252, Palgrave Macmillan.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:intecp:978-0-230-30211-2_8
    DOI: 10.1057/9780230302112_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    2. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, December.
    3. Ken Binmore, 1998. "Game Theory and the Social Contract - Vol. 2: Just Playing," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 2, number 0262024446, December.
    4. Broome,John, 1999. "Ethics out of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521644914, January.
    5. Ken Binmore, 1994. "Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262023636, December.
    6. Hart, Oliver, 1995. "Firms, Contracts, and Financial Structure," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198288817.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2011. "A Rawlsian View of CSR and the Game Theory of its Implementation (Part I): the Multi-stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance," International Economic Association Series, in: Lorenzo Sacconi & Margaret Blair & R. Edward Freeman & Alessandro Vercelli (ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, chapter 7, pages 157-193, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Sanja Pekovic & Sebastian Vogt, 2021. "The fit between corporate social responsibility and corporate governance: the impact on a firm’s financial performance," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1095-1125, May.
    3. Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Sacconi, Lorenzo, 2013. "Social responsibility, activism and boycotting in a firm–stakeholders network of games with players’ conformist preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 216-226.
    4. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2015. "The Nash solution is more utilitarian than egalitarian," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(3), pages 463-478, November.
    5. Suzanne Young & Vijaya Thyil, 2014. "Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance: Role of Context in International Settings," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 122(1), pages 1-24, June.
    6. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2011. "A Rawlsian View of CSR and the Game Theory of its Implementation (III): Conformism, Equilibrium Refinement and Selection," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Lorenzo Sacconi & Giacomo Degli Antoni (ed.), Social Capital, Corporate Social Responsibility, Economic Behaviour and Performance, chapter 2, pages 42-79, Palgrave Macmillan.
    7. Virginia Cecchini Manara & Lorenzo Sacconi, 2019. "Compliance with socially responsible norms of behavior: reputation vs. conformity," Econometica Working Papers wp73, Econometica.
    8. Silvia Sacchetti & Carlo Borzaga, 2021. "The foundations of the “public organisation”: governance failure and the problem of external effects," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 25(3), pages 731-758, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lorenzo Sacconi, 2011. "A Rawlsian View of CSR and the Game Theory of its Implementation (Part I): the Multi-stakeholder Model of Corporate Governance," International Economic Association Series, in: Lorenzo Sacconi & Margaret Blair & R. Edward Freeman & Alessandro Vercelli (ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Governance, chapter 7, pages 157-193, Palgrave Macmillan.
    2. Larry Samuelson, 2016. "Game Theory in Economics and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 30(4), pages 107-130, Fall.
    3. Hendrik Vollmer, 2013. "What kind of game is everyday interaction?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 25(3), pages 370-404, August.
    4. Thijssen, J.J.J., 2003. "Investment under uncertainty, market evolution and coalition spillovers in a game theoretic perspective," Other publications TiSEM 672073a6-492e-4621-8d4a-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    5. Ben Cooper & Chris Wallace, 2000. "The Evolution of Partnerships," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 28(3), pages 365-381, February.
    6. Muthoo, Abhinay, 2004. "A model of the origins of basic property rights," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 288-312, November.
    7. Souza, Filipe & Rêgo, Leandro, 2012. "Mixed Equilibrium: When Burning Money is Rational," MPRA Paper 43410, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2006. "Book Review," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(3), pages 535-542, September.
    9. Louis Corriveau, 2012. "Game theory and the kula," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(1), pages 106-128, February.
    10. Ley, Eduardo, 2006. "Statistical inference as a bargaining game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(1), pages 142-149, October.
    11. Anderson, Ronald W. & Nyborg, Kjell G., 2011. "Financing and corporate growth under repeated moral hazard," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 1-24, January.
    12. Pursey Heugens & J. Oosterhout & Muel Kaptein, 2006. "Foundations and Applications for Contractualist Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 68(3), pages 211-228, October.
    13. Houba, Harold & Wen, Quan, 2014. "Backward induction and unacceptable offers," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 151-156.
    14. Max Boisot & Ron Sanchez, 2010. "Organization as a Nexus of Rules: Emergence in the Evolution of Systems of Exchange," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 21(4), pages 378-405.
    15. Fabrizio Germano, 2006. "On some geometry and equivalence classes of normal form games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 34(4), pages 561-581, November.
    16. Vega-Redondo, Fernando, 1997. "Shaping long-run expectations in problems of coordination," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 783-806, December.
    17. Giacomo Bonanno, 2008. "Non-cooperative game theory," Working Papers 86, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    18. Eguia, Jon X. & Llorente-Saguer, Aniol & Morton, Rebecca & Nicolò, Antonio, 2018. "Equilibrium selection in sequential games with imperfect information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 465-483.
    19. Daniel Castellanos, 2005. "Arrow´S Impossibility Theorem Is Not So Impossible And Condorcet´S Paradox Is Not So Paradoxical: The Adequate Definition Of A Social Choice Problem," Documentos CEDE 2025, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    20. J. van Oosterhout & P.P.M.A.R. Heugens & S.P. Kaptein, 2003. "The Internal Morality of Contacting: Redeeming the Contractualist Endeavor in Business Ethics," Working Papers 03-15, Utrecht School of Economics.

    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:pal:intecp:978-0-230-30211-2_8. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave.com .

    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.