Abstract

This study is devoted to the analysis of the concept of subsidiarity, which allowed the formulation of the subsidiarity principle, acting in various spheres of collective human activity. Systematization of the literary sources and approaches to the management of business activities proved that the ethical principle of subsidiarity aims to develop the well-being of collective human life, but it also has its limitations. On the one hand, numerous positive examples of mutual support, cooperation, help, mentoring, and employee development are known in business activity, as well as in management theory and practice. On the other hand, there have always been conflicts, rivalry, and competition at certain times. Besides that, not all businessmen and managers have always behaved following generally accepted principles. The main purpose of this article is to analyze the features of the application of the principle of subsidiarity in management and business in general and in specific examples. The methodological tools of the research are methods of critical analysis of literature and praxeological analysis of human actions. The article presents the results of the analysis of the function and features of the application of the concept of subsidiarity, including functional attributes specific to the principle of subsidiarity and the attributes that contradict it. The examples for the use of the concept of subsidiarity in management and business offered in this paper are not exhaustive. The Motivator-Hygiene theory and job enrichment, workers participation in organization or participation in decision making, corporate social responsibility and microfinance, initiated by M. Yunus as microcredit, Grameen Bank and Grameen Movement, were used as tools for the illustration of attributes characteristic of the principle of subsidiarity. The analysis of functional attributes opposed to the principle of subsidiarity or simulating it was carried out on the example of the theory of bureaucracy dysfunctions, discrimination, corruption, mobbing/bullying, paternalism, Taylorism, or the Scientific Management. The article presents the results of the analysis, which proved that the application of the subsidiarity principle is a specific case of the Aristotelian principle of the golden mean, the pursuit of balance, harmony, equilibrium, i.e., individual, and collective human development and practice of virtues, distributive justice. In this case, however, there is no external criterion that could be used to establish this balance or equilibrium. The research empirically confirms and theoretically proves the existence of an intersubjective and historical evaluation (criterion) subject to manipulation. This situation creates a practical problem for the effectiveness of this principle because people with insufficient knowledge, weak in spirit (weak character), or bad intentions can use this principle for their purposes, explaining their behaviors by ignorance, good intentions, etc.

Keywords: functional attributes of subsidiarity, management & business, practical & ethical aspects, praxeological analysis, subsidiarity, subsidiarity antinomies & antonyms.

JEL Classification: A13, D02, D2, D6, D9, E7, I3, J71, K1, M1, O15.

Cite as: Swiatkiewicz, O. (2022). Subsidiarity in Management & Business Activity: The Two Sides of the Phenomenon. Business Ethics and Leadership, 6(3), 77-91. https://doi.org/10.21272/bel.6(3).77-91.2022

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Aguinis, H., Martin, G.P., Gomez-Mejia, L.R., O’Boyle, Jr., E.H., & Joo, H. (2018). Two sides of CEO pay injustice: A power law conceptualization of CEO over and underpayment. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management, 16(1), 3-30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
2. Aꞵländer, M.S. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility as Subsidiary Co-Responsibility: A Macroeconomic Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99, 115-128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Alteri, A.M. (2016). Gender-Based Discrimination in the Workplace: Why Courts Tell Employers That Breastfeeding Discrimination Is Legal. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36(3), 264-282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
4. Anguita, P.M., Martín, M.A., & Clare, A. (2014). Environmental Subsidiarity as a Guiding Principle for Forestry Governance: Application to Payment for Ecosystem Services and REDD+ Architecture. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 27, 617-631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Ashta, A. & Mor, S. (2022). Is microcredit a reverse innovation? FIIB Busines Review, 11(2), 225-234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Baggini, J. & Fosl, P.S. (2010). Przybornik etyka. Kompendium metod i pojęć etycznych. Warszawa: Instytut Wydawniczy Pax. [The Ethics Toolkit. A Compendium of Ethical Concepts and Methods]. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Available at: [Link]
7. Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. In W.M. Kurtines & J.L. Gewirtz (eds.) Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development. Vol. 1: Theory (pp. 45-103). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Pub. Available at: [Link]
8. Bandura, A. (2001). Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Barreto, D. (2018). Presidentes de empresas ganham 46 vezes mais que os trabalhadores. [CEOs earn 46 times more than workers]. Sábado. Available at: [Link]
10. Bernoux, P. (1989). A sociologia das organizações. [Sociology of organizations]. Porto: Rés. Available at: [Link]
11. Bianchi, P. (1996). Subsidiarity and its significance. In Pat Devine, Yannis Katsoulacos & Roger Sugden (eds.). Competitiveness, subsidiarity and industrial policy (pp. 43-58). London: Routledge. Available at: [Link]
12. Cabała, P. (2007). Prakseologiczna analiza działania. [Praxeological analysis of action]. Prakseologia, 147, 9-18. [Google Scholar]
13. Canário, S.F. (2015). Portugal Sou Eu, Revealing the ‘Made in Portugal’ Stamp. [Portugal Sou Eu, Revealing the ‘Made in Portugal’ Stamp]. Unpublished master’s thesis, Católica Lisbon, School of Business & Economics. Available at: [Link]
14. Carroll, A.B. & Meeks, M.D. (1999). Models of management morality: European applications and implications. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(2), 108-116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Chambel, M.J. & Curral, L. (1995). Psicossociologia das Organizações. [Psychosociology of organizations]. Lisboa: Texto Editora. Available at: [Link]
16. Chiavenato, I. (1983). Introdução à teoria geral da administração. [Introduction to general management theory]. São Paulo: McGraw-Hill. Available at: [Link]
17. Cordeiro, B.O. (2020). Global mobility of microfinance policies. Policy and Society, 39(1), 19-35. [CrossRef]
18. Cremers, M. (2017). What Corporate Governance Can Learn from Catholic Social Teaching. Journal of Business Ethics, 145, 711-724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Derksen, M. (2014). Turning men into machnies? Scientific management, industrial psychology, and the “human factor”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 50(2), 148-165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Doliński, D. (1995). Etyka produktywności. Czy duch kapitalizmu krąży nad Polską? [Productivity ethics. Is the spirit of capitalism hovering over Poland?]. Kolokwia Psychologiczne, 2, 11-21. Available at: [Link]
21. Duarte, F.C. & Nacle, I.C.C. (2013). Subsidiariedade: a evolução do princípio constitucional limitador da interferência estatal. [Subsidiarity: the evolution of the constitutional principle limiting state interference]. Seqüência: Estudos Jurídicos e Políticos, 68, 91-107. [Google Scholar]
22. Enderle, G. & Arruda, M.C. (2004). Improving Globalization: An Introduction. In M.C. Arruda & G. Enderle (eds). Improving Globalization (pp. 7-13). Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV. [Google Scholar]
23. Freire, J. (1993). Sociologia do trabalho: uma introdução. [Sociology of work: an introduction]. Porto: Ed. Afrontamento. Available at: [Link]
24. Gasparski, W. (1995).Wartościowanie działań. [Valuing actions]. Prakseologia, 1-2(126-127), 15-28. Available at: [Link]
25. Głuszczuk, D. (2013). Regionalna polityka innowacyjna – dualność i jej zasady. [Regional innovation policy – duality and its principles]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 285, 38-45. [Google Scholar]
26. Godwin, S. (2020). Children’s capacities and paternalism. The Journal of Ethics, 24, 307-331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Gonçalves, H.M., Silva, G., & Brites, R. (2017). Estudo do Impacto da Adesão ao “PORTUGAL SOU EU” nas Empresas. [Study of the Impact of Adherence to “PORTUGAL SOU EU” on Companies]. ISEG – Lisbon School of Economics & Management, Universidade de Lisboa, CEGE – Centro de Estudos de Gestão. Retrieved 14.03.2018. Available at: [Link]
28. Goodpaster, K.E., Maines, T.D., Naughton, M., & Shapiro, B. (2018). Using UNPRME to Teach, Research, and Enact Business Ethics: Insights from the Catholic Identity Matrix for Business Schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 147, 761-777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
29. Gussen, B.F. (2015). Is subsidiarity a conditio sine qua non for sustainability? [Is subsidiarity a condition without which there would be no sustainability?] Policy Studies, 36(4), 384-398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Hannan, M.T. & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149-164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Harrison, E.F. (1987). The managerial decision-making process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Available at: [Link]
32. Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 46(1), 53-62. Available at: [Link]
33. Herzberg, F. (1996). A Teoria Motivação-Higiene. [The Motivation-Hygiene Theory]. In C.A. Marques i M.P. Cunha (eds.). Comportamento Organizacional e Gestão de Empresas [Organizational behavior and business management] (pp. 43-65). Lisboa: Pub. Dom Quixote. Available at: [Link]
34. Ibrahim, Y., Ahmed, I., & Minai, M.S. (2018). The influence of institutional characteristics on financial performance of microfinance institutions in the OIC countries. Journal of Scientific Papers Economics & Sociology, 11(2), 19-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]    
35. Jarosz, M. (2007). Dysfunkcje polskiej transformacji [Dysfunctions of the Polish transformation]. In B. Klimczak & A. Lewicka-Strzałecka (eds.). Etyka i ekonomia (pp. 109-132). Warszawa: PWE. Available at: [Link]
36. Jesson, J. & Lacey, F. (2006). How to do (or not to do) a critical literature review. Pharmacy Education, 6(2), 139-148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Kelley, S. (2009). Subsidiarity: challenging the top down bias. Journal of Religion and Business Ethics, 1(2), Art.2. [Google Scholar]
38. Kelly, J.E. (2004). Solidarity and Subsidiarity: „Organizing Principles” for Corporate Moral Leadership in the New Global Economy. Journal of Business Ethics, 52, 283-295. [Google Scholar]
39. Ketokivi, M., Mantere, S., & Cornelissen, J. (2017). Reasoning by analogy and the progress of theory, Academy of Management Review, 42(4), 637-658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
40. Kotarbiński, T. (1986). Medytacje o życiu godziwym. [Meditations on a decent life]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Available at: [Link]
41. Kotarbiński, T. (1987). Pisma etyczne. [Ethical writings]. Wrocław: Ossolineum. Available at: [Link]
42. Kowal, J. & Gwiazda-Sawicka, G. (2018). Mobbing as a problem in management ethics. Annales. Ethics in Economic Life, 12(5), 131-145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Latimer, T. (2018). Against subsidiarity. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 26(3), 282-303. [CrossRef]
44. Ledford, Jr., G.E. (2014). The changing landscape of employee rewards: Observations and prescriptions. Organizational Dynamics, 43, 168-179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Lima, R.P. (2018). BE penaliza desigualdade salarial. [BE penalizes wage inequality]. Expresso, 10. Available at: [Link]
46. Łobocki, M. (1997). Spolegliwy opiekun a altruista. [Humanism-Praxeology-Pedagogy]. In Z. Wołek & A. Owoc (eds.). Humanizm – Prakseologia – Pedagogika (pp. 83-94). Zielona Góra: Stowarzyszenie Lubuskie. Available at: [Link]
47. Lopes, A. & Correia, A.D. (2003). A problemática da confiança na gestão das relações laborais. Análise Social, XXXVIII(168), 841-849. [Google Scholar]
48. Mączyński, J. (1998). Diagnozowanie partycypacji decyzyjnej. [Diagnosing decision participation]. Warszawa: IFiS PAN. Available at: [Link]
49. Makowski, G. (2008). Korupcja jako problem społeczny. [Corruption as a social problem]. Warszawa: Trio. Available at: [Link]
50. Malos, S. (2015). Overt Stereotype Biases and Discrimination in the Workplace: Why Haven’t We Fixed This by Now? Employee Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 27, 271-280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]  
51. Maquiavel (1994). O Príncipe. A Arte da Guerra. [The prince. The art of war]. Amadora: Ediclube. Available at: [Link]
52. Melé, D. (2005). Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity in Organisational Forms. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 293-305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
53. Michaelson, C. (2015). Executive Compensation and Moral Luck. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 34(2), 237-258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Mostert, E. (2015). Who should do what in environmental management? Twelve principles for allocating responsibilities. Environmental Science & Policy, 45, 123-131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Newton, K. (2004). Social trust: individual and cross-national approaches. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 3(1), 15-35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. O’Fallon, M.J. & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A Review of the Empirical Ethical Decision-Decision making Literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59, 375-413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. O’Loughlin, K., Kendig, H., Hussain, R., & Cannon, L. (2017). Ageism Feature. Age discrimination in the workplace: The more things change. Australian Journal on Ageing, 36(2), 98-101. [CrossRef]
58. Ossowska, M. (1949/2002). Motywy postępowania: z zagadnień psychologii moralności. [Motives of conduct: from the issues of the psychology of morality]. Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza. Available at: [Link]
59. Ossowska, M. (1970/85). Normy moralne: próba systematyzacji. [Moral norms: an attempt at systematization]. Warszawa: PWN. Available at: [Link]
60. Pendola, A. (2019). Levinas, bureaucracy, and the ethics of school leadership. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(14), 1528-1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
61. Pereira, C.A. (2015). OCDE: Desigualdade entre ricos e pobres em máximos de 30 anos trava crescimento. [OECD: Inequality between rich and poor at 30-year highs holds back growth]. Jornal de Negócios. Available at: [Link]
62. Pimenova, O. (2016). Subsidiarity as a ‘regulation principle’ in the EU. The Theory and Practice of Legislation, 4(3), 381-398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
63. Pszczołowski, T. (1964). Prakseologiczny punkt widzenia w badaniu pracy. [Praxeological point of view in the study of work]. Materiały Prakseologiczne, 8, 5-18. Available at: [Link]
64. Pszczołowski, T. (1978). Orgnizacja od dołu i od góry. [Organization from below and above]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Available at: [Link]
65. Radzka, B. (2012). Kultura organizacyjna a mobbing. [Organizational culture and mobbing]. In T. Wyka & C. Szmidt (eds.). Wieloaspektowość mobbingu w stosunkach pracy (pp. 31-55). Warszawa: Poltext. Available at: [Link]
66. Rego, A., Cunha, M.P., Costa, N.G., Gonçalves, H., & Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2007). Gestão ética e socialmente responsável: teoria e prática. [Ethical and socially responsible management: theory and practice]. Lisboa: Editora RH. Available at: [Link]
67. Roque, A. (2017). Educação: Igreja lembra ao Estado princípio da subsidiariedade. [Education: Church reminds the State of subsidiarity principle]. Available at: [Link]
68. Sison, A.J.G. & Fontrodona, J. (2012). The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-thomistic tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 211-246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
69. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
70. Sousa, L. (2011). Corrupção. [Corruption]. Lisboa: FFMS. Available at: [Link]
71. Sullivan, L.S. & Niker, F. (2018). Relational autonomy, paternalism, and maternalism. Ethic Theory and Moral Practice, 21, 649-667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
72. Szmidt, C. (2012). Mobbing – istota, przyczyny i skutki. [Mobbing – the essence, causes and effects]. In T. Wyka & C. Szmidt (eds.). Wieloaspektowość mobbingu w stosunkach pracy (pp. 15-30). Warszawa: Poltext. Available at: [Link]
73. Taylor, F.W. (1972). Badanie czasu pracy, praca akordowa i przodujący robotnik. [Working time research, piecework and a leading worker]. In Jerzy Kurnal (ed.). Twórcy naukowych podstaw organizacji (pp. 43-53). Warszawa: PWE. Available at: [Link]
74. Taylor, F.W. (1972a). Zasady naukowego zarządzania. [Principles of scientific management]. In Jerzy Kurnal (ed.). Twórcy naukowych podstaw organizacji (pp. 54-87). Warszawa: PWE. Available at: [Link]
75. Wang, H., Tong, L., Takeuchi, R., & George, G. (2016). Corporate Social Responsibility: An Overview and New Research Directions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(2), 534-544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
76. Warren, R.C. (1999). Against paternalism in Human Resource Management. Business Ethics: A European Review, 8(1), 50-59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
77. Weitzenfeld, J.S. (1984). Valid reasoning by analogy. Philosophy of Science, 51(1), 137-149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
78. Whittington, J.L. & Gerloff, E.A. (2000). Saindo da selva das teorias de gestão: Uma revisão e nova síntese. [Coming out of the jungle of management theories: A review and new synthesis]. In M.P. Cunha (ed.), Teoria organizacional: perspectivas e prospectivas (pp. 421-435). Lisboa: Publicações Dom Quixote. Available at: [Link]
79. Woleński, J. & Hartman, J. (2008). Wiedza o etyce. [Knowledge of ethics]. Warszawa – Bielsko-Biała: Wydawnictwo Szkolne PWN. Available at: [Link]
80. Yunus, M. (2004). The Micro-credit Movement: Experiences and Perspectives. In M.C. Arruda & G. Enderle (eds.). Improving Globalization (pp. 15-33). Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV. [Google Scholar]
81. Zieleniewski, J. (1969/79). Organizacja i zarządzanie. [Organization and management]. Warszawa: PWN. Available at: [Link]
82. Zurita, M.L.M., Cook, B., Harms, L., & March, A. (2015). Towards new disaster governance: Subsidiarity as a critical tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25, 386-398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]