The Responsibility Principle

Most people, most of the time, want to, and do, accept responsibility for the effects their actions have on others. - Freeman et. al.1

As the quote above asserts, the responsibility principle is the basic belief that in general, people want to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions.  We can find evidence for this in the myriad nasty monikers society has for people who seem blind to the impact of their actions.  For instance, what do we call someone who lights up a cigarette in the middle of a crowded outdoor event?  Or someone who tosses a bag of trash out of a car window on the highway?  How about the person on a plane or in a restaurant who is listening to music or watching a video on their phone without earphones?

 The origin of the responsibility principle is probably as old as human society. Codes of ethics and laws throughout human history deal in large part with what should be done when the actions of one person negatively impact the life of another. We were taught as children to apologize when we violated this rule. We are offended when we are left to clean up someone else’s mess. And when we commit the offense, we feel a powerful urge to make it right somehow. Essentially, the responsibility principle is generally accepted in society, and so it applies to each of us personally. 

Now you might say, well sure, I do that, but what about the other people who are not concerned with the consequences of their actions?  Freeman and his co-authors offer us some guidance here:

 One response to the responsibility principle is that some people in fact do not want to be responsible or ethical. They simply want to get away with as much as possible at the expense of others. People sometimes act "opportunistically and with guile.” 

While there is some truth in this view, the question is one of starting points. Start with the responsibility principle and one has to design in how to deal with opportunism. Start with opportunism and one is likely to leave out important ideas such as human dignity, cooperative endeavors, and the creative spirit, all of which, we suggest, are the cornerstones of capitalism.

Let’s unpack that a little.  The definition of dignity is: the state or quality of being worthy of respect. The definition of respect is a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something. Is it possible that the true goal of business is to leverage creativity and cooperation to contribute to human dignity?  At our best, don’t we all want to create a reality in which human beings are treated with respect, just for being human beings?

Furthermore, selfish people who take advantage of others probably still want dignity and respect but their perspective is limited (intentionally or not) to a particular group at the exclusion of everyone else. Consider the head of household who makes as much money as possible to advance the dignity and respect of her family to the exclusion of everyone else.  Or the benevolent CEO who fights fiercely for the dignity and respect of everyone in her company to the exclusion of everyone else.  How about the President of a country who uses any means necessary to ensure the dignity and respect of her people to the exclusion of those in other nations?  Are these people examples of “selfish” people who disregard the responsibility principle?

Conscious business leaders strive to be ever-more inclusive in their thinking.  This is, of course, a never-ending pursuit, but an important starting point of a conscious company.  Stakeholder orientation asks you to continually discover and take responsibility for all of the impacts of your actions. 

 1R. Edward Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C., Parmar, B.L., and de Colle, S. (2010) Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge University Press, New York.