Collective Decision-Making and Ethical issues in Social Enterprises

Problem statement In this work, we investigate how ethical issues are collectively experienced by producers of an agri-food cooperative engaged in a collective decision-making process. We attempt to understand how social... [ view full abstract ]

• Problem statement

In this work, we investigate how ethical issues are collectively experienced by producers of an agri-food cooperative engaged in a collective decision-making process. We attempt to understand how social conventions frame actors’ ability to mobilize their moral competencies (Boltanski et Thévenot, 1991; Nachi, 2006) within a particular social settings : producers’ work meetings. In this research, we ask two specific questions : Why are ethical issues considered as undesirable experiences? Why do some participants fail to engage into ethical disputes?

• Objective

The aim of this research is to question the status of ethical issues within collective decision-making. As many authors have noted already (Brand, 2009; Chanut et al., 2012; Clegg et al., 2007; de Nanteuil et Cnop, 2007; Elms et Weaver, 2010), such experiences have not sufficiently drawn the attention of researchers in management.

• Theory

In order to answer these questions, we mobilize the conceptual contributions developed by the ethnopragmatist model (Berger, 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2015) developed in sociology. Such a theoretical framework helps us explore what constraints frame who, how and what can(not) be discussed in a particular social setting.

• Methodology

Requiring a thorough accounts of the actors’ meaning, representations and experiences we favor a qualitative research. Within this research, we therefore collect our data through non-participant observations and ad-hoc semi-structured interviews. The empirical data is interpreted with thematic analysis (Giordano, 2013; Paillé et Mucchielli, 2012).

• Results

Based on this research, we observe the effectiveness of « topical relevance » and « role appropriateness » conventions (Berger, 2015). As regards the undesiderability of ethical issues or disputes, we note the influence of « time » and « place » constraints. As regards the difficulty of engaging in critical discussions, we note the actors’ difficulty to build « intelligible », « tangible » and « face-preserving » arguments. In one case, we also acknowledge for the difficulty to ensure the « presence » of one’s arguments in the discussions given the discursive format.

• Added value to the international research community

Such an objective attempts to address issues raised in different - although complementary - epistemic communities. 

As regards decision-making theories, it allows to connect issues as regards ethics and decision-making (Brand, 2009; Chanut et al., 2012; Clegg et al., 2007). It also makes possible the reconnection between decision-making and talk activities (Grosjean, 2010; Vaara, 2006, 2010). Third, it provides the pragmatist and interactionist approach to decision-making with alternative and innovative paths for analyzing social situations in management research (Journé et Raulet-Croset, 2012). Finally, it also allows for the mobilization/practice of pragmatist approach developed in the sociology of collective action "in/with" different fields - not institutionalized but associationist settings. 

As far as Social and Solidarity Economy theory is concerned, it allows us to deepen our understanding of governance mechanisms. Because it pays attention to some participants’ « communicational failures », the ethnopragmatist approach is able to link up previous generic conceptualizations of  « proximity or autonomous public space functioning » (Fraisse, 2003; Laville, 2005, 2011) with always specific social situations.

• References

Boltanski, L., and Thévenot, L. (1991). De la justification: les économies de la grandeur (Editions Gallimard).

Berger, M. (2008). Répondre en citoyen ordinaire. Pour une étude ethnopragmatique des engagements profanes. Tracés. Revue de Sciences humaines 191–208.

Berger, M. (2012a). Les cadres de l’expérience démocratique. La participation comme activité, interaction et histoire partagée. Revue de l’Institut de Sociologie 107

Berger, M. (2012b). Mettre les pieds dans une discussion publique. In Erving Goffman et L’ordre de L’interaction, (PUF), pp. 395–429.

Berger, M., and De Munck, J. (2015). Présentation. Participer, entre idéal et illusion. Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques 1–24.

Brand, V. (2009). Empirical Business Ethics Research and Paradigm Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 86(4), 429–449.

Chanut, V., Guibert, N., & Rojot, J. (2012). Les limites de la rationalité limitée ? Un essai de réflexion en sciences de gestion. Management & Avenir, n° 48(8), 97–117. https://doi.org/10.3917/mav.04...

Clegg, S., Kornberger, M., & Rhodes, C. (2007). Business Ethics as Practice. British Journal of Management, 18(2), 107–122.

De Nanteuil, M. and Cnop, A. (2007). Penser la justice dans les organisations : de Weber à Walzer. Travailler, n° 18(2), 183–202.

Elms, H., Weaver, G., & Philosophy Documentation Center. (2010). New Directions in Strategic Management and Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20, 401–425.

Fraisse, L. (2003). Économie solidaire et démocratisation de l’économie. Hermès 137–145.

Laville, J.-L. (2005). Action publique et économie solidaire: Une perspective internationale. Erès.

Laville, J.-L. (2011). L’économie solidaire: Une perspective internationale. Hachette Pluriel Editions.

Nachi, M. (2006). Introduction à la sociologie pragmatique. Armand Colin.

Vaara, E. (2006). La stratégie comme discours : esquisse d’un cadre conceptuel. In La fabrique de la stratégie: une perspective multidimensionnelle, (Vuibert),.

Vaara, E. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as A multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. In The Globalization of Strategy Research, (Emerald Group Publishing Limited), pp. 29–50.