Organisations & Society - Assignment 2
Assignment 2.1
1. By the concept of incorporation, the authors allude to the relationship between
organizations and the (modern) society. Important in this relationship is the fact that it is
mutual and two-ways (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). So there is a mutual
incorporation. As written before, this incorporation is a two-way concept, which means that
organizations incorporate society in ‘themselves’, but organizations also incorporate
themselves into the society (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). The first one occurs
because organizations incorporate (or take into account) certain societal programs, goals, and
values in their decision-making process and their eventual decisions. By eventually
production those decisions, the societal values, and goals are being reinforced by the
organization producing the decisions. This process of reinforcement can strengthen the
organization’s awareness and reflection on its roles and responsibilities in the society
(Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). Secondly, the abovementioned process can also cause
reinforcement of certain societal programs, which organizations incorporate into their
decision premises. So, by incorporating those same societal programs, an organization can
not only incorporate the society in itself but also itself in the society (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009).
2. Furthermore, there are two possible ways an organization can incorporate itself. The first
one is called the isolation mode. If an organization uses this mode of incorporation, it
incorporates societal programmes because it can help them to reach their goals. The
organization does not do this because it is the right thing to do. If this mode is used,
organizations take a closer look at the cost and benefits of incorporating societal programs,
and depending on the costs and benefits, they incorporate or they do not. (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009). On the other hand, there is the inclusive (integrity mode). If an
organization is using this mode, it incorporates societal programs because it is the right thing
to do. The organization considers these programs as beneficial for the society they are part of.
In short, the isolating mode takes the organization goals into account. The inclusive mode
aims at contributing certain societal conditions, which are beneficial for the people in that
society. (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009).
,3. Within the inclusive mode, a distinction can be made between integrity of and integrity
beyond incorporation. This distinction can help us understand that organizations do not
incorporate themselves into the whole society, but rather a part of it. (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009). The first one, integrity of incorporation, means that organizational
decisions incorporate program-based premises because it is the right thing to do. In this case,
decisions also reinforce those premises. The second one, integrity beyond incorporation,
means that organizations do not incorporate some societal programs because there are,
according to that organization, unfair. So not complying with certain programs, and critically
evaluating others before incorporation, seems like the right thing to do (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009).
4. The distinction between integrity of and beyond incorporation relates to corporate social
responsibility, because by incorporating societal programs an organization might consider
fair or as ‘the right thing to do’ under the given circumstances (integrity of incorporation),
can contribute to society, the people that live in that society, and maybe even the environment
as a whole. However, there are always differences in how far an organization can and is
willing to fulfill those beneficial societal programs. For example, some organizations
consider incorporating some (or only the necessary) societal programs as sufficient for CSR,
while other organizations see it as their duty to critically consider which societal programs
are truly beneficial and, if yes, how far they should incorporate them in order to be socially
responsible (integrity beyond incorporation). In other words, there is no single definition
about what corporate social responsibility means, how one can exactly achieve it by
incorporating certain societal programs, and how far an organization should fulfill those
societal programs and values in order to be socially responsible. So there are always
deviations (integrity beyond incorporation).
To conclude, the abovementiod distinction between integrity of and beyond incorporation can
function as some sort of tool to evaluate in which degree an organization is socially
responsible, and/or how it can achieve/improve that.
5a. We think an organization should strive for incorporation beyond compliance. Of course, it
is easier for organizations to just comply with the current laws, which reflect a
basic/obligated level, and do no more. But the organization’s contribution to society would be
much bigger in that organization actively chooses which societal programs and values are
beneficial and which not. This will result in an organization that, on some occasions, deviates
, from positive laws, but on other occasions surpasses the requirements of the law. We think
that, eventually, this will make a greater contribution to society than just complying with the
positive law, reflecting a basic/obligated level, and do no more than that.
5b. It might be best that organizations strive to find a point somewhere in between the
isolated and inclusive mode. At first, because organizations should try to accomplish their
own goals and, in most cases, make a cost-benefit analysis, in order to predict possible
outcomes/profits/revenues. This is not a bad thing, it is just what organizations do in order to
be more certain about their survival. But on the other hand, organizations should also try to
comply with societal programs, and critically evaluate them in order to contribute to the
society they are part of. If that is not happening, it might be possible that an organization
becomes a burden to that society, in terms of pollution, violation of human right, etc.
Besides that, some sort of social responsibility, in the form of critically evaluation and
complying to truly beneficial societal programs, can also be beneficial for the organization, in
terms of customer and/or investor attention. So, finding a point somewhere in between the
isolated and inclusive mode might not only be beneficial for the environment, but also for the
organization itself.
Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009) Organizations: social systems conducting experiments.
Assignment 2.2
Fundamentals Virtue ethics
The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that virtue ethics places less emphasis on
learning rules and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character.
Important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper and sincerity. Aristotus
declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits, derived from
natural internal tendencies but need to be nurtured. He also once argued that virtues are all
the good habits we acquire, which we regulate our emotions. In addition it is mentioned that
to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring
bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility etc. Virtue theory emphasizes
moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth.
Assignment 2.1
1. By the concept of incorporation, the authors allude to the relationship between
organizations and the (modern) society. Important in this relationship is the fact that it is
mutual and two-ways (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). So there is a mutual
incorporation. As written before, this incorporation is a two-way concept, which means that
organizations incorporate society in ‘themselves’, but organizations also incorporate
themselves into the society (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). The first one occurs
because organizations incorporate (or take into account) certain societal programs, goals, and
values in their decision-making process and their eventual decisions. By eventually
production those decisions, the societal values, and goals are being reinforced by the
organization producing the decisions. This process of reinforcement can strengthen the
organization’s awareness and reflection on its roles and responsibilities in the society
(Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009). Secondly, the abovementioned process can also cause
reinforcement of certain societal programs, which organizations incorporate into their
decision premises. So, by incorporating those same societal programs, an organization can
not only incorporate the society in itself but also itself in the society (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009).
2. Furthermore, there are two possible ways an organization can incorporate itself. The first
one is called the isolation mode. If an organization uses this mode of incorporation, it
incorporates societal programmes because it can help them to reach their goals. The
organization does not do this because it is the right thing to do. If this mode is used,
organizations take a closer look at the cost and benefits of incorporating societal programs,
and depending on the costs and benefits, they incorporate or they do not. (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009). On the other hand, there is the inclusive (integrity mode). If an
organization is using this mode, it incorporates societal programs because it is the right thing
to do. The organization considers these programs as beneficial for the society they are part of.
In short, the isolating mode takes the organization goals into account. The inclusive mode
aims at contributing certain societal conditions, which are beneficial for the people in that
society. (Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009).
,3. Within the inclusive mode, a distinction can be made between integrity of and integrity
beyond incorporation. This distinction can help us understand that organizations do not
incorporate themselves into the whole society, but rather a part of it. (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009). The first one, integrity of incorporation, means that organizational
decisions incorporate program-based premises because it is the right thing to do. In this case,
decisions also reinforce those premises. The second one, integrity beyond incorporation,
means that organizations do not incorporate some societal programs because there are,
according to that organization, unfair. So not complying with certain programs, and critically
evaluating others before incorporation, seems like the right thing to do (Achterbergh, J., &
Vriens, D. (2009).
4. The distinction between integrity of and beyond incorporation relates to corporate social
responsibility, because by incorporating societal programs an organization might consider
fair or as ‘the right thing to do’ under the given circumstances (integrity of incorporation),
can contribute to society, the people that live in that society, and maybe even the environment
as a whole. However, there are always differences in how far an organization can and is
willing to fulfill those beneficial societal programs. For example, some organizations
consider incorporating some (or only the necessary) societal programs as sufficient for CSR,
while other organizations see it as their duty to critically consider which societal programs
are truly beneficial and, if yes, how far they should incorporate them in order to be socially
responsible (integrity beyond incorporation). In other words, there is no single definition
about what corporate social responsibility means, how one can exactly achieve it by
incorporating certain societal programs, and how far an organization should fulfill those
societal programs and values in order to be socially responsible. So there are always
deviations (integrity beyond incorporation).
To conclude, the abovementiod distinction between integrity of and beyond incorporation can
function as some sort of tool to evaluate in which degree an organization is socially
responsible, and/or how it can achieve/improve that.
5a. We think an organization should strive for incorporation beyond compliance. Of course, it
is easier for organizations to just comply with the current laws, which reflect a
basic/obligated level, and do no more. But the organization’s contribution to society would be
much bigger in that organization actively chooses which societal programs and values are
beneficial and which not. This will result in an organization that, on some occasions, deviates
, from positive laws, but on other occasions surpasses the requirements of the law. We think
that, eventually, this will make a greater contribution to society than just complying with the
positive law, reflecting a basic/obligated level, and do no more than that.
5b. It might be best that organizations strive to find a point somewhere in between the
isolated and inclusive mode. At first, because organizations should try to accomplish their
own goals and, in most cases, make a cost-benefit analysis, in order to predict possible
outcomes/profits/revenues. This is not a bad thing, it is just what organizations do in order to
be more certain about their survival. But on the other hand, organizations should also try to
comply with societal programs, and critically evaluate them in order to contribute to the
society they are part of. If that is not happening, it might be possible that an organization
becomes a burden to that society, in terms of pollution, violation of human right, etc.
Besides that, some sort of social responsibility, in the form of critically evaluation and
complying to truly beneficial societal programs, can also be beneficial for the organization, in
terms of customer and/or investor attention. So, finding a point somewhere in between the
isolated and inclusive mode might not only be beneficial for the environment, but also for the
organization itself.
Achterbergh, J., & Vriens, D. (2009) Organizations: social systems conducting experiments.
Assignment 2.2
Fundamentals Virtue ethics
The internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that virtue ethics places less emphasis on
learning rules and instead stresses the importance of developing good habits of character.
Important virtues are fortitude, generosity, self-respect, good temper and sincerity. Aristotus
declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits, derived from
natural internal tendencies but need to be nurtured. He also once argued that virtues are all
the good habits we acquire, which we regulate our emotions. In addition it is mentioned that
to advocating good habits of character, virtue theorists hold that we should avoid acquiring
bad character traits, or vices, such as cowardice, insensibility etc. Virtue theory emphasizes
moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth.
