Introduction:

In topic 3, we looked at ethics and considered the basis on ethical decisions are made and how some ethical issues play out in the business setting (such as the drivers for unethical behaviour, and how a key business tool – CBA – might have characteristics to it that challenge some of the ethical principles we considered).

In this topic 4, we look at the issue of justice and consider how this also impacts on decision making in the business context.

Learning objectives:

1. Understand the different dimensions of justice and the basis on which justice obligations rest.
2. Understand how issues of justice impact on business decision making and the implications this may have in how firms go about their day to day activities.

Discussion:

Justice

What is ‘justice’? Terms such as equity, environmental justice, distributive justice, procedural justice and so on are used inconsistently in the literature (Ikeme 2003) so it can be hard at times to get a clear picture of what various authors are talking about.

Social notions of justice are in many ways the product of time and place. Some authors also see the dominant notions of justice within a given society at any time being those of the most powerful social actors (Purvis & Grainger 2004). In this sense, we need to be careful that we are not grounding our own views of justice in a view that is dominant as a consequence of it being socially constructed within the dominant societal power base and suited to the interests of the most powerful actors in society. We see this issue played out in the international scene where views of what is just/unjust can be quite at odds between the powerful industrialised nations as compared to what we often term the ‘developing’ or ‘least developed’ nations – the United Nations is a place where this conflict becomes very clear.

Justice theory is also most often considered in terms of the individual however groups can be seen as the realm in which individual justice issues are played out, and as a unit of focus themselves (Schlosberg 2007).

Justice is seen as mostly (or for some, fully) a matter of fair and equitable distribution in society (Barry 2003; Ikeme 2003). This distribution covers many things ranging from physical goods (food, possessions), to money, medical care, opportunities (say, to gain employment, or to study), access to fair treatment under the law, and so on.

Justice as distribution, that is mostly (or only) an issue of distributional equity, is seen by some to miss other key aspects of justice leading to a multi-dimensional approach to what justice has to do with. This broader view sees justice as comprising four dimensions (Schlosberg 2007; O'Neill, Holland & Light 2008):

• Distributional/Equity
• Procedural
• Recognition
• Capabilities

In practice, the idea of justice tends to embrace the four limbs (above) even though it may have a greater focus on the distributional limb in the literature (Schlosberg 2007).

Distribution

Equity is the distributional limb of justice (Ikeme 2003) and refers to the fair or just distribution of goods, resources, rights, liberties, wealth, opportunities etc in society (Attfield 1998; Schlosberg 2007). Equity issues can also be seen to apply between people of the current generation (intra-generational equity), between people of the current generation and of generations to follow (inter-generational) and, for some, between humans and non-human species (a between species issue) (Attfield 1998).
Equity is not the same as equality as there may be good reason why some receive different distributions of burdens and benefits (Beder 2006; Bell 2009) and an equitable distribution may take into account issues of merit, or performance, or needs or ability, depending on the principles of justice being applied (Westra 2006). Equity does however require that any difference in treatment is morally relevant - that is, it must be fair and impartial (Beder 2006).

Procedural

Procedural justice refers to fair and equitable institutional processes in decision making – it focuses on the process by which disputes are resolved and how things in society are distributed. It encompasses the idea of participation in decision making processes whereby parties are not excluded, or otherwise not treated impartially, in their ability to be heard and to participant in decision making.
Both maldistribution and misrecognition are played out in the participation realm where a lack of recognition means non-participation; non-participation shows lack of recognition. Participation is a tool to achieve distributional and recognition justice (Schlosberg 2007).

Recognition

Recognition is built on the idea that social and cultural differences exist. An injustice occurs where an individual or a social group, especially ones with privilege and power (where power can take a number of forms – political, economic, military etc) are dismissive of these social and cultural differences and fail to recognise them.
Misrecognition in the social and political realms is demonstrated by various forms of insults, degradation, and devaluation at both the individual and cultural level which inflicts damage to oppressed individuals and communities in the political and cultural realms (Schlosberg 2007).
Misrecognition is seen as the foundation for distributive injustice in that maldistribution happens for a reason and a lack of recognition is a key reason for this (Schlosberg 2007).
One claimed example of a lack of recognition is industrial agriculture where, by replacing local community farming, seed collecting, and seed exchange, not only is seed diversity destroyed but local culture built around agricultural and seed saving-swapping practices is also lost (Schlosberg 2007). The point is that these local cultural practices are often not recognised as valuable within the industrial agriculture model.
Another example is the case referred to in topic 1 where Banerjee (2008) discussed his work with the Aboriginal community – here is the quote again:

In my work with two indigenous communities in Australia I sought ‘stakeholder input’ about the presence of a mine on indigenous land. The response was unanimous: both communities wanted the mining company (a very, very, very large multinational company) to ‘clean up, pack up, leave and never come back’, to quote the words of one traditional owner. The company’s response was to hire an anthropologist to ‘consult’ with communities on how best to expand its operations. The fact that these ‘consultations’ take place under drastically unequal power relations remains unaddressed.  As Tatz (1982) points out, Aboriginal communities are the ‘receivers of consultation, that is, that Aboriginal people are from time to time talked to about the decisions arrived at’ (1982: 176, original emphasis). In every case involving ‘consultation’ with traditional owners in Australia, the focus was not whether or not mining should proceed but under what conditions should it be carried out. Royalties, promises of jobs, pitting one community against another are some strategies that have proved useful for mining companies.” (p. 64)

A recognition view of this case would propose that the values and beliefs of the local Aboriginal community were not recognised as they did not fit within the frame of reference of the mining company.

Capabilities

The capabilities limb of justice has to do with the transformation of things that are distributed in society into a fully functioning life and what it is that interrupts that process (Schlosberg 2007).

"Capabilities are about a person's opportunities to do and to be what they choose in the context of a given society; the focus is on individual agency, functioning, and well-being, rather than more traditional distributive indicators" (Schlosberg 2007, pp. 29-30).

The point is that ensuring people have an equitable distribution of things in society does not necessarily translate into seeing people lead a fully functioning life – the things that are distributed need to be utilised in a way that sees this life come about, hence the need to match distribution with capabilities to use what is distributed to see a fully functioning life come about.

Justice, and non-humans

Do issues of justice apply to the non-human world?

Some argue that justice is purely a human domain issue. This 'exclude the non-human world’ view holds that while it is true that harm can be done to non-human species and humans can act wrongly towards them, this is not an issue of justice between humans and non-humans as "justice and injustice can be predicated only on relations among creatures who are regarded as moral equals in the sense that they weigh equally in the moral scales" (Barry 2003, p. 488).

Schlosberg (2007), in commenting on this ‘exclude’ view proposes that the exclusion of Nature from issues of justice is culturally biased:

"……. classic liberal justice theorists such as Rawls or Barry would not include nature as a subject of, or partner in, justice. But note the lack of impartiality here: some cultures and cosmologies assume sentience, a soul, and consciousness to nature—both individual critters and the larger landscapes. Any theory of justice that excludes parts of the world from consideration that some cultures would include begins under a very partial cultural bias; and assuming one cultural bias over the other is not how one should ground an impartial theory of justice. (p. 108)".

On the ‘moral equals’ claim in the quote by Barry (above), Schlosberg goes on to propose that this as a weak claim:

"In reality, however, there is only very rarely an appearance of this language of equality. ……Taylor's Respect for Nature (1986), coming in the early years of environmental ethics, revived the idea that we can invoke a thorough consideration of nature without proclaiming human-nonhuman equality. We can make the claim for the moral consideration of nature as part of our extended community, and the inclusion of that nature in a theory of justice, without insisting that every part of nature has moral worth identical and equal to our own". (p. 118)

Schlosberg proposes (as do others) that there is no reason why all of the four dimensions of justice cannot be applied to the non-human world. He proposes for example that there is no logical reason to limit issues of recognition to merely humans and it applies equally to human relationships with Nature. The capabilities limb can also be equally applied to non-humans as they too have interests in the sense of what it is that contributes to their good and their flourishing. So delivering the things needed for this 'flourishing' is only as good as the capabilities of the non-human things to flourish. For participation, the inclusion of non-human interests in human decision making processes can be just as well applied as for human participation.

"Participatory parity for nature and political participation of the nonhuman would not strictly mean votes for animals; the goal is more broadly the recognition of the consideration of the natural world in human decision-making" (Schlosberg 2007, p. 158).

Inter-generational and intra-generational justice

It’s worth taking a moment to look at the issues of inter-generational and intra-generational justice, not only to help complete this general introduction to what justice is all about, but to set the scene for some of the things we will cover in the sustainable business topics to follow. The reason is that what it means for humanity to live sustainably is often defined in terms in terms of obligations within the current generation and, in particular, between this generation and those to follow. Dovers & Handmer (1993) for example propose that:

"Intergenerational equity, or justice between generations, is the ultimate moral principle behind the notion of sustainability" (p. 18).

Intergenerational justice

The terms intergenerational justice and intergenerational equity are used a little inconsistently in the literature although you will more often find the equity term used. Here are two definitions of the concept:

"Intergenerational equity is the principle that future generations have fair and equal right to the same standard of quality of life and environment as the present generation. This is a core principle of sustainable development" (ARIES 2008).

"Intergenerational equity refers to the need for a just distribution of rewards and burdens between generations, and fair and impartial treatment of future generations. Time of birth, in other words, has no more to do with how a person should be valued than do place of birth, tribe, nationality, religion, or gender" (Beder 2006, p. 80).

Intergenerational justice has to do with generations living at different times as opposed to justice between older and younger members of current society (Attfield 1998). This is not a clear-cut issue of considering future generations as those generations yet to be born, as younger members of society can be seen as a future generation in some respects (Attfield 1998). The issue of intergenerational justice can also be seen to embrace future generations of non-human species (as per the discussion above on the inclusion/exclusion of non-human species from issues of justice).

So what is the basis for intergenerational justice? Why should we care? There are a number of approaches to answering this question – here are some:

• Moral standing: If all current generations are considered to have moral standing, then it cannot be denied that future generations also have moral standing which carries obligations for them to be treated justly (Attfield 1998).
• Moral obligation: Those in the future have no say in decisions that are made in the present, so the current generation has a moral responsibility to those of the future on whom current decisions impact (Beder 1996).
• Community: Humans live in a form of community that stretches over time and obligations exist on each generation to act in the interests of this community, that is, community is spread over both time and place (Schlosberg 2007).
• Impartiality: The impartiality principle dismisses time of birth as morally relevant in considering how humans should be valued and the obligations humans have to one another (Beder 2006).
• Custodian: Each generation is really only a temporary custodian of the planet and the Earth’s ecological and cultural resources must be cared for for the benefit of future generations in addition to the current generation having a right to their use (Brown-Weiss 1990).
• Externalising to the future: Intergenerational justice may not need to be such a concern if all costs of actions made by any generation were fully internalised to that generation. This is not the case as the current generation pushes many of the costs of its behaviours into the future and as such current generations have an obligation to future generations as a consequences of this externalisation of harms (Frischmann 2005).
• Limited resources: In a world where resources are limited, equity and justice requires the fair sharing of those resources between both current and future generations (McLaren 2003).
• General obligation: Each generation has a general obligation of care for what it has inherited, and to pass on its inheritance in a reasonable condition to future generations (Turner 1992; Beder 1996; Frischmann 2005).

So if we have obligations to future generations, what are they? There are many views on this in the literature – here are a few which are not necessarily consistent with each other and not everyone necessarily agrees with them all (these will become increasingly relevant as we look at the sustainable business topics):

• Opportunity: To provide equal opportunity across generations to allow future generations to pursue their own meaning of a good life in their own way (Barry 2003).
• Per capita wellbeing: In the sustainability context (defined as sustainable development), it requires development that ensures at the least non-declining per capita wellbeing into the future (Pearce & Atkinson 1998).
• Prediction of future needs: It is possible for the current generation to reasonably predict some of the basic needs of future generation of humans and non-human species, and decisions can be made now to ensure resources are left to allow future generations to satisfy those needs (Attfield 1998).
• Population: Not to leave too many or too few humans so as to threaten the wellbeing of future generations or possible extinction of the human species (Attfield 1998).
• Resource and cultural base: Each generation must pass on a resource and cultural base which provides each new generation with sufficient options to solve its own problems and satisfy its own values (Brown-Weiss 1990)
• Earth condition
  Equal quality: To pass on to future generations an equally uncontaminated or pollution-free environment, or more generally an Earth/environment in at least as good a condition, as it received including the protection of biodiversity (Brown-Weiss 1990; Diesendorf 1997; Attfield 1998; Westra 2006, in reference to Brown-Weiss' view).
  Repair: Current generation to repair any damage done by it or by previous generations such that the 'as good a state' rule is not violated (Westra 2006, in reference to Brown-Weiss' view).
  Relative position: Future generations to inherit the Earth (and hence, current generation to pass on the Earth) in a condition that allows them to live lives in a state of wellbeing that is no less than that of the previous generation (Turner 1992; UNDP 1994; Pearce & Atkinson 1998).
• Compensation obligation: The current generation is to compensate future generations for any environmental degradations that are passed on as a result of use of the environment in the present (Brown-Weiss 1990). This compensation can be in the form of increased wealth including knowledge, technology, infrastructure, productive investments, institutions, and a more productive resource base (Brown-Weiss 1990).
• Non-predictive: The current generation should not try to be predictive of the preferences of future generations but rather provide them with the flexibility needed to achieve their own goals based on their own values (Brown-Weiss 1990).

Intra-generational justice

Intra-generational justice applies across a number of areas including across nations, to people and communities within nations (Diesendorf 1997), and for some, non-human species as well as to humans. Many of the issues considered in the above discussion on intergenerational justice (the basis for caring, what obligations arise to future generations) can be equally applied in the intra-generational context. For example, if we say we have certain obligations to future generations, then we similarly have obligations to members of the current generation as it is not morally relevant to discriminate based on whether someone is born in the current generation or a future generation.

One of the streams of thought in the intra-generational justice area that is of particular relevance to this course is that of Environmental Justice.

Environmental Justice has to do with the human domain in the sense that it is concerned with the distribution of environmental goods and bads in society and in particular the exposure of minority groups, non-whites, and the poor to environmental bads and as such, also captures ideas of environmental racism (Ikeme 2003; Schlosberg 2007; Bell 2009; Mascarenhas 2009). (An alternate stream of thought is concerned with ecological issues and the way humans act towards the natural environment and this stream of thought often goes under the name of ecological justice or environmental ethics – the terms can be a bit confusing!).

Environmental justice does however move beyond a fair-share of distribution of environmental goods and bads to an elimination of the bads at the source (Agyeman, Bullard & Evans 2003). It is seen to have its discipline roots in environmental sociology and the study of race relations (as compared to say, in philosophy or ethics) and has emerged from the civil rights movement as opposed to say, the environmental movement (Martinez 2003). Environmental justice is also strongly related to issues of inequality in wealth distribution and as such is concerned at broader notions of inequality than the final distribution of environmental goods and bads (Bell 2009).
Further, the concept has evolved from being concerned with issues of environmental justice within nations (especially within developed nations) to also being concerned with issues of environmental justice across nations especially between the North and South where the South is seen to carry a disproportionately higher share of environmental bads (Mascarenhas 2009).

Intergenerational and intra-generational justice – linkages

Intergenerational and intra-generational justice issues are seen to be necessarily linked (UNDP 1994; Schlosberg 2007). The point is that what happens now by way of unjust or inequitable behaviour spills over into the future - the lives future generations experience are impacted on by the way society functions in the present. As such, some authors claim that it is not really possible to talk of these two aspects of justice as separate issues – they go hand-in-hand.

References

Agyeman, J, Bullard, RD & Evans, B (eds) 2003, Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, Earthscan, London.

ARIES 2008, Intergenerational Equity, Australian Research Institute in Education for Sustainability at Macquarie University, Sydney, viewed 23 Feb 2008, <http://www.aries.mq.edu.au/portal/about/glossary.htm/>.

Attfield, R 1998, 'Environmental Ethics and Intergenerational Equity.', Inquiry, vol. 41, no. 2, 1998/06, pp. 207-222.

Banerjee, SB 2008, 'Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', Critical Sociology, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 51-79.

Barry, B 2003, 'Sustainability and Intergenerational Justice (reproduced from "Theoria" 1997)', in Environmental Ethics, eds. A Light & H Rolston, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford, UK., pp. 487-499.

Beder, S 2006, Environmental Principles and Policies: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, Earthscan, London.

Beder, S 1996, The Nature of Sustainable Development (cited at University of Wollongong: http://www.uow.edu.au/ ; Faculty of Arts; URL: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/STS300/equity/meaning/integen.html ; Accessed 23/2/2008), Scribe, Newham, Vic.

Bell, MM 2009, An Invitation to Environmental Sociology, Pine Forage Press, California, USA.

Brown-Weiss, E 1990, 'In Fairness to Future Generations', Environment, vol. 32, no. 3, April, p. 6.

Diesendorf, M 1997, 'Principles of Ecological Sustainability', in Human Ecology, Human Economy, eds. M Diesendorf & C Hamilton, Allen & Unwin, Sydney, pp. 64-97.

Dovers, SR & Handmer, JW 1993, 'Contradictions in Sustainability', Environmental Conservation, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 217-222.

Frischmann , BM 2005, 'Some Thoughts on Shortsightedness and Intergenerational Equity', Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, vol. 36, pp. 457-467.

Ikeme, J 2003, 'Equity, environmental justice and sustainability: incomplete approaches in climate change politics', Global Environmental Change, vol. 13, no. 3, 2003/10, pp. 195-206.

Martinez, J 2003, 'Mining Conflicts, Environmental Justice and Valuation', in Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, eds. J Agyeman, RD Bullard & B Evans, Earthscan, London.

Mascarenhas, M 2009, 'Environmental Inequality and Environmental Justice', in Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology, eds. KA Gould & TL Lewis, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 127-141.

McLaren, D 2003, 'Environmental Space, Equity and Ecological Debt', in Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, eds. J Agyeman, RD Bullard & B Evans, Earthscan, London.

O'Neill, J, Holland, A & Light, A 2008, Environmental Values, Routledge, Abingdon, UK.

Pearce, D & Atkinson, G 1998, The Concept of Sustainable Development: An Evaluation of its Usefulness Ten Years After Brundtland, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London and University of East Anglia: Working Paper PA 98-02.

Purvis, M & Grainger, A 2004, 'Future Perspectives: Developing Sustainable Development', in Exploring Sustainable Development, eds. M Purvis & A Grainger, Earthscan, London.

Schlosberg, D 2007, Defining Environmental Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Turner, KR 1992, Speculations on Weak and Strong Sustainability, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment University of East Anglia and University College London, Working Paper GEC 92-26.

UNDP 1994, Human Development Report 1994, United Nations Development Programme.

Westra, L 2006, Environmental Justice and The Rights of Unborn and Future Generations, Earthscan, London.