Recent structural innovations in global commerce present difficult challenges for legacy understandings of responsibility. The rise of outsourcing, sub-contracting, and mobile app-based platforms have dramatically restructured relationships between and among economic actors. Though not entirely new, the remarkable rise in the prevalence of these “not-quite-arm’s-length” relationships present difficulties for conceptions of responsibility based on interrogating the past for specifiable actions by blameworthy actors. Iris Marion Young invites investigation of a “social connection model of responsibility” (SCMR) that is, in many ways, (...) better suited to this new commercial reality. Scholars working to understand corporate responsibility have invoked Young’s model to some good effect, though often superficially and uncritically. In this paper, we look closely at Young’s social connection model and its potential for helping us understand corporate responsibility in a radically networked world. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Moral repair is an important way for firms to heal moral relationships with stakeholders following a transgression. The concept is rooted in recognition theory, which is often used to develop normative perspectives and prescriptions, but the same theory has also propelled a view of moral repair as premised on negotiation between offender and victim(s), which involves the complex social construction of the transgression and the appropriate amends. The tension between normative principles and socioconstructivist implementation begs the question how offending firms (...) should approach moral repair. Addressing this question, we develop a two-level conceptualization of moral repair, distinguishing between procedural and substantive levels of practice, which accommodate normativity and socioconstructivism, respectively. In so doing, we enrich the literature by 1) promoting conceptual clarity, 2) refining understanding of the moral repair process, and 3) suggesting the use of a unified, configurational approach to studying (nonlinear) relations between amends and moral outcomes. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

While many brands face the after-effects of historical transgressions, prior research provides little insight into these issues. Against this backdrop, this research presents five experiments providing convergent evidence for a lingering negative effect of historical brand transgressions (HBTs) on present brand evaluation, an effect that is due to a detrimental effect of HBTs on perceptions of brand warmth. Studies 1 and 2 establish the main effect and mediation. Studies 3–5 examine mitigating effects. Study 3 checks if high institutional pressure can (...) serve as an excuse strategy that buffers the negative effects of a transgression. Studies 4 and 5 test the mitigating effect of different response styles (recognition, apology, and/or compensation). Together, these results contribute to the business ethics and marketing literature by defining the concept of HBT and showing why it harms a current brand’s evaluation and how brands can mitigate its negative effects. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark