Hardin argues that individual self-interest averts collective action and finally results in the overexploitation of common goods. This results in the conceptualization of a social dilemma, described by Hardin ( 1968) as the “tragedy of the commons”. In contrast, the economic approach is mainly based on research analyzing (natural) common-pool resources held in common by a community of people, and, therefore, vulnerable to overuse.
Virtue-ethics scholars have primarily developed this theory, proposing the concept of business as a “community of persons” that work in common, based on cooperative activity to provide goods and services in an efficient, competitive and profitable way in favor of the common good (Mele 2009, 2012 Sison and Fontrodona 2012, 2013). The ethical approach is supported by the theory of the common good of the firm (Argandoña 1998 Fremeaux and Michelson 2017). We embed implicit ontological assumptions of both theories, bridging the two different literatures (Suddaby et al. We use the term “commons” in plural because we argue that both nurture the current understanding of the commons organizing view. Whereas the “common good” refers to what is shared and beneficial for the wellbeing of all members of a community achieved through collective participation (Mele 2009), the debate on “common goods” refers to economic goods, a limited set of resources shared by people that cannot be excluded from using them (e.g., a source of drinking water, an irrigation system) consequently, these resources are affected by overuse (Ostrom 1990).Īlthough both theories have emerged in different fields of research and evolved independently and mainly remain disconnected in the ethics and economic fields, they build on a similar research question: How does the pursuit of the common good and the development of collective forms of work and common resource management explain “commons organizing”?Īs mentioned, this paper studies “commons organizing” by exploring the convergence between ethical (the common good) and economic (common resources/collective action) concerns. In this context, understanding the difference between the “common good” and “common goods” is fundamental.
The first is the theory of the common good in business ethics (Argandoña 1998 O’Brien 2008) and the second is the study of institutions for collective action theory in new institutional economics (Ostrom 1990 Aligica and Tarko 2013). In this paper, we claim that the current re-emergence of the long tradition of “commons” phenomena has been studied and supported by two different scientific approaches. 28) refers to the growth of a “commons paradigm”. It refers to the research on people working in common in the pursuit of the common good (Sison 2007) and the development of collective forms of common goods production, distribution management and ownership (Hess 2008). This is supported by research that identifies different theories, constructs and practices related to commons organizational designs. In recent years, business ethics and economic scholars have paid increasing attention to “the language of the commons” (Fournier 2013 Mele 2012 Meyer and Hudon 2019 Sison and Fontrodona 2012). We contribute to business ethics literature by exploring the convergence between the ethical and economic approaches in the development of a commons organizing view. Drawing on the analysis of what is new in these forms of organizing, we propose a comprehensive model, highlighting the integration of two sets of organizing principles-common good and collective action – and five problem-solving processes to explain the main dimensions of commons organizing. The latter expands to include the novel concepts of new commons, “commoning” and polycentric governance. In this paper, we build on two main literature streams: (1) the ethical approach based on the theory of the common good of the firm in virtue ethics and (2) the economic approach based on the theory of institutions for collective action developed by Ostrom’s research on common-pool resources to avert the tragedy of the commons. In turn, this promotes commons organizational designs based on collective forms of common goods production, distribution, management and ownership. The latter refers to the processes by which communities of people work in common in the pursuit of the common good. In recent years, business ethics and economic scholars have been paying greater attention to the development of commons organizing.
0 kommentar(er)
