Le giustificazioni etiche di chi ostacola (o non favorisce) il bene dell’azienda

ABSTRACT:

This work intends to explore the possible ethical justifications that operators provide, to others and / or themselves, when accused of having placed against (or of not having favored) the good of the organization, with the aim of proposing some recommendations to prevent these justifications. From a methodological point of view, we proceeded with the analysis of the literature on ethical theories, with particular regard to the study of Granitz and Loewy (2007), entitled “Applying ethical theories: Interpreting and responding to student plagiarism”, which examined the ethical justifications of students accused of plagiarism. The same deviant behavior (plagiarism) can be attributed to different ethical reasonings (e.g. deontology, utilitarianism, rational personal interest). The analysis of these justifications reveals the complexity of human being and the need for an integrated approach that leads to clarity and consistency between tools (e.g. mission, code of ethics, incentive system), people and between people and tools. Many ethical justifications find their basis in the idea of the company as a legal fiction (so-called fiction theory, typical of shareholder theory), used for personal purposes by those who control it, or as an aggregate of interests of a plurality of stakeholders (so-called aggregate theory, typical of stakeholder theory). The real entity theory (organization as a real person, with its own interests, rights and duties) seems more appropriate to mitigate the justifications examined, especially in the form that considers the organization as a community of persons with its own multi-dimensional interest, to be communicated through a mission that simultaneously takes into account the economic, social and environmental aspects.