Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Chapter 6 Normative Assessments in Empirical Business Ethics Research
- Chapter 7 Descriptive Ethics
- Chapter 8 Grounded Theory in Business Ethics
- Chapter 9 Discourse Analysis as a Method for Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Research
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Case Study Approaches
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Chapter 6 - Normative Assessments in Empirical Business Ethics Research
Toward a Methodological Bridge across the Ontological Gap
from Qualitative Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 November 2017
Book contents
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Philosophical Approaches
- Part II Empirical Approaches
- Qualitative Approaches
- Chapter 6 Normative Assessments in Empirical Business Ethics Research
- Chapter 7 Descriptive Ethics
- Chapter 8 Grounded Theory in Business Ethics
- Chapter 9 Discourse Analysis as a Method for Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility Research
- Quantitative and Experimental Approaches
- Contemporary Approaches
- Case Study Approaches
- Part III A Researcher in the Spotlight
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Cambridge Handbook of Research Approaches to Business Ethics and Corporate Responsibility , pp. 90 - 105Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Arnold, D. G., & Harris, J. D. (2012). Kantian Business Ethics: Critical Perspectives. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Benz, A. (2004). Einleitung: Governance: Modebegriff oder Nützliches sozialwissenschaftliches Konzept? In Benz, A. (Ed.) Governance: Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen: Eine Einführung (11–28). Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
Bohmann, James, & Rehg, William (2014). Jürgen Habermas. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fall 2014 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archies/fall2014/entries/habermas/.Google Scholar
Bowie, N. E. (1998). A Kantian Theory of Meaningful Work. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1083–1092.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Hamlin, A., & Pettit, P. (Eds.), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State (pp. 18–34). Oxford/New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1997a). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Bohmann, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (pp. 67–92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1997b). Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy. In Bohmann, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (pp. 407–437). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, N. (2013). Reflective Equilibrium. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2013 Edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/reflective-equilibrium/.Google Scholar
Dingwerth, K. (2007). The New Transnationalism - Private Transnational Governance and Its Democratic Legitimacy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eucken, Walter (2004 [1952]). Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Edited by Eucken, Edith and Paul Hensel, K.. UTB: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a Global Economy: The Emergence of International Accountability Standards. Business Ethics Quarterly, 21(1), 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. U., & Rasche, A. (2007). Discourse Ethics and Social Accountability: The Ethics of SA 8000. Business Ethics Quarterly, 17(2), 187–216.Google Scholar
Gottschalk-Mazouz, N. (2004). Perspektiven der Diskursethik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971 [1962]). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft (5th ed.). Neuwied/Berlin: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (Band 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung; Band 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984). Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1984 [1981]). The Theory of Communicative Action (Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society) (McCarthy, T., Trans.). Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989 [1962]). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (Ed.). (1990). Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification - Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Lenhart, C., Weber-Nicholson, S. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1990 [1983]). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Lenhardt, C., Weber-Nicholson, S. Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1993 [1991]). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996 [1992]). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (2001). The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Homann, K. (2006). Competition and Morality. Discussion Paper of the Wittenberg Center for Global Ethics, (4), 1–20.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1896 [1739]). A Treatise of Human Nature. Reprinted from the original edition in three volumes and edited, with an analytical index, by Shelby-Bigge, L. A.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jamieson, D. (1993). Method and Moral Theory. In Singer, P. (Ed.), A Companion to Ethics (pp. 476–487) Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jastram, S. (2012). Legitimation privater Governance - Chancen und Probleme am Beispiel von ISO 26000. Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastram, S., & Prescher, J. (2014). Legitimizing Corporate Social Responsibility Governance. In: Frederiksen, C., Strue, C., Idowu, S. O., Mermod, A. Y., & Nielsen, M. E. J. (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility and Governance: Practice and Theory (pp. 39–61). Cham. Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Jastram, S., & Schneider, A.-M. (2015). Sustainable Fashion Governance at the Example of the Partnership for Sustainable Textiles. Umweltwirtschaftsforum. 23 (4), 205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jastram, S. (Forthcoming). Habermas’ Theorie und die Legitimation von Multi-Stakeholder-Verfahren in der Praxis. In Scholz, M. & Czuray, M. (Eds.), ISO 26000 und ONR 192500: Leitlinien und Normen zur Unternehmensverantwortung. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Gabler.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1998 [1781]). Critique of Pure Reason. In Guyer, P. & Wood, A. W. (Eds.) The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant (Guyer, P. & Wood, A. W. Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (2002 [1785]). In Wood, A. W. (Ed.), Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals [Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten] (Wood, A. W. Trans.). New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kobrin, S. J. (2008). Globalization, Transnational Corporations, and the Future of Global Governance. In Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Global Corporate Citizenship (pp. 249–272). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). What is Stakeholder Democracy? Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 6-13.Google Scholar
Mueckenberger, U., & Jastram, S. (2010). Transnational Norm-building Networks and the Legitimacy of Corporate Social Responsibility standards. Journal of Business Ethics, 97, 223–239.Google Scholar
O’Neill, O. (1993). Kantian Ethics. In Singer, P. (Ed.), A Companion to Ethics (pp. 175–185). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. J., & Bowie, N. E. (2004). A Kantian Perspective on the Characteristics of Ethics Programs. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 275–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayre-McCord, G. (2015). Moral Realism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2015 Edition, Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/moral-realism/Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann, D. (2006). Global Rules and Private Actors: Toward a New Role of the Transnational Corporation in Global Governance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(4), 505–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Baumann-Pauly, D. (2013). Democratizing Corporate Governance: Compensating for the Democratic Deficit of Corporate Political Activity and Corporate Citizenship. Business & Society, 52(3), 473–514.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2009). Introduction to the Special Issue: Globalization as a Challenge for Business Responsibilities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 19(3), 327–347.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2014). The Business Firm as a Political Actor: A New Theory of the Firm for a Globalizaed World. Business & Society, 53(2), 143–156.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for Political Corporate Social Responsibility: New Challenges and Directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies, 53(3), 273–298.Google Scholar
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a Political Conception of Corporate Responsibility: Business and Society Seen from a Habermasian Perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120.Google Scholar
Simmons, J. A. (2010). Ideal and Nonideal Theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(1), 5-36.Google Scholar
Smith, M. (1993). Moral Realism. In Singer, P. (Ed.), A Companion to Ethics (pp. 15–37). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (2004 [1919]). The Vocation Lectures. Translated by Livingstone, R.. Edited by Owen, D. & Strong, T.. Illinois: Hackett Books.Google Scholar
Wörsdörfer, M. (2010). On the Economic Ethics of Walter Eucken. In Konrad Adenauer Foundation (Ed.), Sixty Years of Social Market Economy: Formation, Development and Perspectives of a Peacemaking Formula (pp. 21–42). Sankt Augustin: Konrad Adenauer Foundation.Google Scholar
Zürn, M. (2004). Global Governance and Legitimacy Problems. Government and Opposition, 39(2), 260–287.Google Scholar