IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/mlucee/20158.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Umfassende Organisationsethik für die moderne Gesellschaft: Ein systematischer Vergleich gewinnorientierter und nicht-gewinnorientierter Unternehmen

Author

Listed:
  • Hielscher, Stefan
  • Pies, Ingo
  • Prinz, Aloys

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag entwickelt eine umfassende Organisationsethik, mit deren Hilfe die Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede von gewinnorientierten Organisationen (Forprofits) und nicht-gewinnorientierten Organisationen (Nonprofits) in einem allgemeinen Analyserahmen erfasst und verglichen werden können. Der Beitrag zeigt, dass sich die Organisationsformen nicht primär dadurch unterscheiden, dass sie prinzipiell unterschiedliche Ziele verfolgen, sondern vielmehr dadurch, dass sie prinzipiell ähnliche Ziele verfolgen, diese aber unterschiedlich priorisieren: Forprofits wollen Gewinne erwirtschaften und betreiben zu diesem Zweck Gemeinwohlförderung. Nonprofits hingegen wollen direkt das Gemeinwohl fördern und mobilisieren zu diesem Zweck als Organisation Ressourcen. Zahlreiche weitere Erkenntnisse der statischen sowie dynamischen Vergleichsanalyse unter idealen sowie nicht-idealen Funktionsbedingungen werden graphisch visualisiert.

Suggested Citation

  • Hielscher, Stefan & Pies, Ingo & Prinz, Aloys, 2015. "Umfassende Organisationsethik für die moderne Gesellschaft: Ein systematischer Vergleich gewinnorientierter und nicht-gewinnorientierter Unternehmen," Discussion Papers 2015-8, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, Chair of Economic Ethics.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:mlucee:20158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/170441/1/dp2015-08.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentinov, Vladislav, 2008. "The transaction cost theory of the nonprofit firm: Beyond opportunism," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 37(1), pages 5-18.
    2. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    3. Baur, Dorothea & Palazzo, Guido, 2011. "The Moral Legitimacy of NGOs as Partners of Corporations," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 579-604, October.
    4. William J. Baumol, 2013. "The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(3), pages 96-108.
    5. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    6. Duizendstraal, Anton & Nentjes, Andries, 1994. "Organizational Slack in Subsidized Nonprofit Institutions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 81(3-4), pages 297-321, December.
    7. Jack Hirshleifer, 1983. "From weakest-link to best-shot: The voluntary provision of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 41(3), pages 371-386, January.
    8. Pies, Ingo & Hielscher, Stefan & Beckmann, Markus, 2009. "Moral Commitments and the Societal Role of Business: An Ordonomic Approach to Corporate Citizenship," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 375-401, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hasan, Iftekhar & Lozano-Vivas, Ana, 2002. "Organizational Form and Expense Preference: Spanish Experience," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 135-150, April.
    2. Shaikh, Ibrahim A. & O'Brien, Jonathan Paul & Peters, Lois, 2018. "Inside directors and the underinvestment of financial slack towards R&D-intensity in high-technology firms," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 192-201.
    3. Tarek Roshdy Gebba & Mohamed Gamal Aboelmaged, 2016. "Corporate Governance of UAE Financial Institutions: A Comparative Study between Conventional and Islamic Banks," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 6(5), pages 1-7.
    4. Ilya Ivaninskiy & Irina Ivashkovskaya & Joseph A. McCahery, 2023. "Does digitalization mitigate or intensify the principal-agent conflict in a firm?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(3), pages 695-725, September.
    5. Evans, Lewis & Meade, Richard, 2005. "The Role and Significance of Cooperatives in New Zealand Agriculture, A Comparative Institutional Analysis," Working Paper Series 3847, Victoria University of Wellington, The New Zealand Institute for the Study of Competition and Regulation.
    6. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.
    7. David Hillier & Patrick McColgan, 2008. "An analysis of majority owner‐managed companies in the UK," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(4), pages 603-623, December.
    8. Martin Kyere & Marcel Ausloos, 2021. "Corporate governance and firms financial performance in the United Kingdom," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 1871-1885, April.
    9. Mohamed Ali Khaldi, 2016. "Mesure opérationnelle de la valeur partenariale et sa répartition," Post-Print hal-01900615, HAL.
    10. Tleubayev, Alisher & Bobojonov, Ihtiyor & Gagalyuk, Taras & Glauben, Thomas, 2020. "Board gender diversity and firm performance: Evidence from the Russian agri-food industry," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(1), pages 35-53.
    11. Ferrell, Allen & Liang, Hao & Renneboog, Luc, 2016. "Socially responsible firms," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(3), pages 585-606.
    12. Stavros E. Arvanitis & Theodoros V. Stamatopoulos & Dimitris Terzakis, 2018. "Is There a Non-linear Relationship of Market Value with Cash and Ownership?," SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, SPOUDAI Journal of Economics and Business, University of Piraeus, vol. 68(1), pages 3-25, January-M.
    13. Ansgar Richter & Susanne Schrader, 2017. "Levels of Employee Share Ownership and the Performance of Listed Companies in Europe," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(2), pages 396-420, June.
    14. Isabelle Le Breton–Miller & Danny Miller, 2006. "Why Do Some Family Businesses Out–Compete? Governance, Long–Term Orientations, and Sustainable Capability," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(6), pages 731-746, November.
    15. Abdullah, Azrul Bin, 2018. "Company-specific characteristics and the choice of hedge accounting for derivatives reporting: Malaysian case," SocArXiv npa6v, Center for Open Science.
    16. Wu, Chloe Yu-Hsuan & Hsu, Hwa-Hsien & Haslam, Jim, 2016. "Audit committees, non-audit services, and auditor reporting decisions prior to failure," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 240-256.
    17. Md. Borhan Uddin Bhuiyan & Solomon Opare & Zahir Ahmed, 2024. "Does Audit Committee Busyness Affect Financial Restatement? Evidence from Audit Committee Share Ownership," Australian Accounting Review, CPA Australia, vol. 34(1), pages 29-54, March.
    18. Raghuram G. Rajan & Luigi Zingales, 1998. "The Governance of the New Enterprise," CRSP working papers 487, Center for Research in Security Prices, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
    19. Ben Slimane, Faten & Padilla Angulo, Laura, 2019. "Strategic change and corporate governance: Evidence from the stock exchange industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 206-218.
    20. Ali Uyar & Cemil Kuzey & Merve Kilic & Abdullah S. Karaman, 2021. "Board structure, financial performance, corporate social responsibility performance, CSR committee, and CEO duality: Disentangling the connection in healthcare," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1730-1748, November.

    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:zbw:mlucee:20158. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/wwhalde.html .

    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.