Reciprocity

Reciprocity is a pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications, or tit for tat. Reciprocity can be shown to be one of the universal aspects of moral codes all around the world and has been argued to be the key for social stability. Reciprocal social mores range from mutual gift exchange to rules of hospitality. As a normative concept, reciprocity typically focuses on an individual's or an organization's return of fitting and proportional benefits for benefits bestowed by others. The return of harm for harm (which we usually call “retribution”) tends to be a more controversial aspect of reciprocity. In addition, it is important to note that, because its core element is an exchange, reciprocity is not synonymous with the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Sociologists, game theorists, and evolutionary psychologists have provided evidence of the evolutionary advantages of tit-for-tat strategies in difficult-to-resolve situations, such as the prisoner's dilemma. Norms of reciprocity, grounded in enlightened self-interest, do not require the invocation of benevolence, or an active concern for the welfare of others, to justify virtues such as truth telling or cooperation. What is more controversial than the cultural universality of the norm of reciprocity and its importance for the evolution of cooperation is the moral question of whether one owes favors in return for involuntary prior favors. For this reason and a few other problems (e.g., the concrete meaning of “fitting,” “proportional,” or “equivalent” returns of favors), reciprocity has been endorsed a bit more warily by ethicists than by social scientists.

As for organizational behavior and theory, Bowie's and a few other ethicists' formulations of corporate social responsibility have shown it to be grounded in norms of reciprocity as well. According to this conceptualization, a company is a moral community in which stakeholders both create and are bound by the rules that govern their social relations. In turn, these relationships are reciprocal; that is, when one party in business dealings infuses the relationship with moral capital, it creates reciprocal duties on the other stakeholders. The definition of corporate responsibility would be too narrow if it focused only on the obligations of the firm. Other stakeholders also have rights and duties. For example, a company may owe its employees loyalty and fair employment practices, but a similar obligation (of loyalty) falls on employees in return. Similarly, we cannot stop environmental pollution by focusing on the emissions reduction of companies exclusively; customers must also do their part to create a demand for environmentally safe or conscious products. According to Bowie, what is needed is a comprehensive theory for determining the appropriate reciprocal duties that exist among corporate stakeholders. Because of the fact of moral pluralism, such a theory will most likely have to be quite complex and sophisticated.