Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Realism and Impartiality: Making Sustainability Effective in Decision-Making

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is both individual and collective widespread concern in society about the impact of human activity and the effects of our decisions on the physical and social environment. This concern is included within the idea of sustainability. The meaning of the concept is still ambiguous and its practical effectiveness disputed. Like many other authors, this article uses as a starting point the definition proposed by the World Commission on Environment and Development (Our common future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987), considering it to be a proposal for changing the assessment of the effects of decisions, from at least two perspectives: (1) what effects we should consider and (2) how we should assess them. Based on this double perspective, sustainability is explored as a method for decision-making which both expands the assessment of the consequences, and also provides an objective criterion for such assessment. It will be argued that the idea of sustainability, seen from this perspective, brings to decision-making two qualities which had been partially lost: realism and impartiality. In turn, the criteria for realism and impartiality in decision-making can be used to identify the limitations of some partial approaches to sustainability, which suffer from insufficient realism (emotional altruism), insufficient impartiality (tactical altruism) or both phenomena at once (egoism). The article concludes by demonstrating how realism and impartiality provide the basis for a new form of sustainable decision-making (ethical sustainability), which is dependent on the development of two moral virtues, prudence and benevolence, and which brings practical effectiveness and ethical sense to the concept of sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C. (1997). Values-based management. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 25–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, E. (1957). Intention, second edition, 1963. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombe, E. (1982). Medallist’s address: Action, intention and ‘double effect’, In Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 56, Washington, DC, pp. 12–25.

  • Aquinas, Th. (2000–2009). Summa Theologiae. In Corpus thomisticum, ed. Enrique Alarcón, Universidad de Navarra. www.corpusthomisticum.org. Accessed on 14 Nov 2014.

  • Aristotle. (1980). The Nicomachean Ethics, trans. D. Ross, Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Arjoon, S. (2010). Aristotelian-thomistic virtue ethics, emotional intelligence and decision-making. Advances in Management, 3(4), 7–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armengou, J., Albareda, S., Bosch, M., & Corcó, J. (2015). Formation and regression of the Ebro Delta: Ethical implications of human intervention (tree cutting and dam construction) in the natural environment. Indian Journal of Research, 4(6), 296–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1974). The limits of organization. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi, R. (2012). Virtue ethics as a resource in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 273–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bañón, A. J., Guillén, M., Michael, W., & McNulty, R. E. (2011). Rethinking the concept of sustainability. Business and Society Review, 116(2), 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & DesJardine, M. R. (2014). Business sustainability: It is about time. Strategic Organization, 12(1), 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastons, M. (2008). The role of virtues in the framing decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 78(3), 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: It is ever truly altruistic? In Berkowitz, (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 20, Academic, New York, pp. 65–122.

  • Batson, C. D., & Shaw, L. L. (1991). Evidence for altruism: Toward a pluralism of prosocial motives. Psychological Inquiry, 2(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, J., & McCurry, N. (2006). Unintended consequences: How the use of LEED can inadvertently fail to benefit the environment. Journal of Green Building, 1(4), 152–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. J., & Hanson, M. E. (1987). Global sustainability: Towards a definition. Environmental Management, 11(6), 713–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busby, J., & Coeckelburgh, M. (2003). The social ascription of obligations to engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(3), 363–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbo, J., Langella, I. M., & Dao, Viet T. (2014). Breaking the ties that bind: From corporate sustainability to socially sustainable systems. Business and Society Review, 119(2), 175–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casanovas, M., Armengou, J., & Ramos, G. (2014). Occupational risk index for assessment of risk in construction work by activity. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 140(1), 04013035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cima, L. R., & Schubeck, T. L. (2001). Self-interest, love, and economic justice: A dialogue between classical economic liberalism and catholic social teaching. Journal of Business Ethics, 30(3), 213–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifton, D., & Amran, A. (2011). The stakeholder approach: A sustainability perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 121–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De la Fuente, A., Pons, O., Aguado, A., & Armengou, J. (2016). Multi-criteria decision-making model for assessing the sustainability index of wind-turbine support systems: Application to a new precast concrete alternative. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. doi:10.3846/13923730.2015.1023347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Norcia, V. (2002). Diverse knowledges and competing interests: An essay on socio-tehcnical problem-solving. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8, 83–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhardt-Toth, E., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). A cognitive elaboration model of sustainability decision making: Investigating financial managers’ orientation toward environmental issues. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 735–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension: Toward a new economics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fergus, A. H. T., & Rowney, J. I. A. (2005). Sustainable development: Lost meaning and opportunity? Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FitzPatrick, William J. (2012). The doctrine of double effect: Intention and permissibility. Philosophy Compass, 7(3), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, The New York Times Magazine.

  • Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Barlett, C. A., & Moran, P. (1999). A new manifesto for management. Sloan Management Review, 40(3), 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, K. (2012). Stakeholders and Sustainability: An evolving theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., et al. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Vol. 1: Handlungsrationalität und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung. Vol. 2: Zur Kritik der funktionalistischen Vernunft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

  • Hartman, E. M. (2006). Can we teach character? An aristotelian answer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibáñez, C., Prat, N., & Canicio, A. (1996). Changes in the hydrology and sediment transport produced by large dams on the lower Ebro River and its estuary. Regulated Rivers, Research and Management, 12(1), 51–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intezari, A., & Pauleen, D. J. (2014). Management wisdom in perspective: Are you virtuous enough to succeed in volatile times? Journal of Business Ethics, 120, 393–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanungo, R. N., & Conger, J. A. (1993). Promoting altruism as a corporate goal. Academy of Management Executive, 7(3), 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates, R. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. (2012). What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47, 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobe, J. (2003). Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis, 63, 190–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehn, D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 533–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. H., & Saen, R. F. (2012). Measuring corporate sustainability management: A data envelopment analysis approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 140, 219–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., & Fu, S. (2012). A systematic approach to engineering ethics education. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1982). The differentiation of society. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1984). After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masek, L. (2009). Intentions, motives and the doctrine of double effect. The Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 567–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, A. (2001). Doing away with double effect. Ethics, 111(2), 219–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). Business ethics in action. Seeking human excellence in organizations. New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D., & Armengou, J. (2013). Relevance of moral legitimacy beyond social license to operate in controversial projects or activities: A case study. In 26th annual conference. European Business Ethics Network. 12–14 Sept, Lille, France.

  • Michelfelder, D., & Jones, S. A. (2013). Sustaining engineering codes of ethics for the twenty-first century. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(1), 237–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, M. J., & Gray, R. (2013). W(h)ither ecology? The triple bottom line, the global reporting initiative, and corporate sustainability reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 118, 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1996). Ten ideas designed to rile everyone who cares about management. Harvard Business Review, 74(4), 61–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (2002). On the implications of the practice-institution distinction: MacIntyre and the application of modern virtue ethics to business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(1), 19–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (2008). Re-imagining the morality of management: A modern virtue ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 18(4), 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morales-Sánchez, R., & Cabello-Medina, C. (2013). The role of four universal moral competencies in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 717–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Riordan, T. (2009). On the politics of sustainability a long way ahead: Sustaining Europe for a long way ahead—making long-term sustainable development policies work. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormazabal, G., Viñolas, B., & Aguado, A. (2008). Enhancing value in crucial decisions: Line 9 of the Barcelona subway. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE, 24(4), 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osorio, L. A., Lobato, M. O., & Castillo, X. (2005). Debates on sustainable development: Towards a holistic view of reality. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7, 501–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, D. M., & Raiborn, C. A. (2001). Sustainable development: The ethics support the economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 32, 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2005). Why do bad management theories persist? A comment on Ghoshal. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 98–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of Business Schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(1), 78–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, J. (1966). The four cardinal virtues: Prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, Ind.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, T., & Derry, R. (2012). Sustainability and business in a complex world. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, W. (1989). Actions. Intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect, philosophy and public affairs, 18(4), 334–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raatzsch, R. (2012). On the notion of sustainability. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 55(4), 361–385. doi:10.1080/0020174X.2012.696349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocha, H. O., & Ghoshal, S. (2006). Beyond self-interest revisited. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 585–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeser, S. (2012). Emotional engineers: Toward morally responsible design. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(1), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosanas, J. M. (2008). Managerial action in an organizational context: the need for multi-criteria decision-making in an organizational context. In Workshop humanizing the firm and the management profession, IESE business School, June 30–July 2.

  • Rowley, J., & Slack, F. (2009). Conceptions of wisdom. Journal of Information Science, 35(1), 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J. A. (2014). Changing the paradigm for engineering ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 985–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekerka, L. E., & Stimel, D. (2012). Environmental sustainability decision making: Clearing a path to change. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(3), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (2009). Capitalism beyond the crisis. The New York review of Books, 56, 5. In http//www.nybooks.com/articles. Accessed on Nov 14, 2014.

  • Sen, A. (2011). The ends and means of sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 14(1), 6–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1945). Administrative Behavior. The Free Press, New York. (Ed. 1997).

  • Simon, H. (1957). Models of man. Social and rational. Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in social setting. New York: Garland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1990). Alternative visions of rationality. In P. K. Moser (Ed.), Rationality in action. Contemporary approaches (pp. 189–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1776). The wealth of nations, New York: The Modern Library (ed. 1994).

  • Tsoukas, H., & Cummings, S. (1997). Marginalization and recovery: The emergence of aristotelian themes in organization studies. Organization Studies, 18, 655–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tully, P. A. (2005). The doctrine of double effect and the question of constraints on business decisions. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandaele, N. J., & Decouttere, C. J. (2013). Sustainable R&D portfolio assessment. Decision Support Systems, 54, 1521–1532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villadsen, K. (2011). Modern welfare and ‘good old’ philanthropy. A forgotten or a troubling trajectory? Public Management Review, 13(8), 1057–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Ma, W.-F. (2012). Scientific knowledge and extended epistemic virtues. Erkenntnis, 77(2), 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Business Ethics: State of the Art. International Journal of Management Reviews, March 1–16.

  • Wible, A. (2009). Knobe, side effects, and the morally good. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 173–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, T. C. (2006). Engineering decision: An important issue in engineering education. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 132(3), 289–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/Immaculada, 22, 08017, Barcelona, Spain

    Miquel Bastons

  2. School of Architecture, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, C/Immaculada, 22, 08017, Barcelona, Spain

    Jaume Armengou

Authors
  1. Miquel Bastons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jaume Armengou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Miquel Bastons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bastons, M., Armengou, J. Realism and Impartiality: Making Sustainability Effective in Decision-Making. Sci Eng Ethics 23, 969–987 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9850-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9850-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation