The common good might well be the spark that lights the torches of ethical consciousness that humans need to be more human. It carries a positive and constructive vision of the economy which it considers as a necessary instrument of human development.
​
Rooted in research studies in human sciences, the common good perspective could also be a practical guide which is characterized by a high level of demand and coherence.
​
The common good principle proposes a dual consideration of the community and individual dimensions. In so doing, it avoids two risks, that of totalitarianism, which obscures the human person in the name of the community, and that of individualism, which obscures the community in the name of the development of the person.
​
The common good principle does not seek to establish a balance between the community and individual dimensions, but rather an interrelation that can be stated as follows: participation in the community good is a necessity when it leads one to renouncing the personal good but to fully realizing it. This leads to the following two principles:
​
- The community good is not more important than the personal good: it simply comes first because the community good is a condition for the realization of the personal good.
​
- The community good is to be promoted only in so far as it enables personal good.
​
Because of the increase in the size of businesses, the weakening of the sense of community and the fact that managers tend to lose sight of their employees’ personal situations at work, it seems to be particularly useful to remember that there is no personal good unless it is linked to a community good and that there is no community good unless it is directed towards the personal good.
Common good and society
I wondered how the common good perspective could help us to live together, to cooperate, while respecting our differences. Is cooperation possible in all circumstances? Within organizations, what is the point of promoting a diversity of identities if the diversity of opinions and work practices is not discussed or welcomed? In what cases can diversity be a factor in cooperation? In the era of globalization of trade, the question of cooperation despite diversity is particularly significant.
Diversity policies tend to make diversity an end in itself. The targeted diversity is then a static representation of people with different attributes in a social system. The attributes considered are essentially gender, age, ethnic origin, disability, seniority, culture, education, occupation, seniority, religious belief and sexual orientation.
​
Diversity theories oscillate between three main ideologies: equality, diversity management and inclusion. The equality approach aims to preserve equal rights and tends to justify affirmative action programs aimed at increasing the numerical representation of a minority. The diversity management approach aims to maximize the economic benefits of diversity. Finally, the inclusion-based approach aims to foster full employee participation by strengthening their skills and knowledge to enable them to be better integrated into the company and society.
​
While these approaches should not be considered separately, as they are intertwined in reality, each of them individually presents risks. The equality-based approach risks increasing conflicts between interest groups by actively amplifying the quantitative importance of certain minorities or discriminated-against groups. This approach to diversity thus runs the risk of over-categorizing individuals based on their attributes in order to multiply positive but superficial stories about the company.
The diversity management approach can lead to the a priori assumption that the diversity of attributes within a group is a means of performance, regardless of how individuals cooperate. The numerous studies on the positive impact of diversity on satisfaction, loyalty, commitment or creativity give the feeling that differences can be exploited from an economic perspective. This approach to diversity carries the risk of an economic instrumentalization of diversity, suggesting that the ultimate purpose of the company is economic.
​
Finally, the inclusive approach risks focusing on the professional integration of certain individuals and neglecting their community membership. Consequently, this approach to diversity paradoxically entails the risk of excluding certain individuals deprived of the virtues of collective action.
The common good perspective can help to overcome these three risks - categorization, instrumentalization, exclusion - inherent in an approach to diversity, and more generally to an approach to differences. Indeed, the common good perspective is an invitation to cooperation.
I emphasize the conditions for such cooperation - subsidiarity, teleological hierarchy, obligations relating to individual rights - enabling individuals with distinct attributes to work together in pursuit of both the community good and the personal good of each member of the community.
Common good and economy
Recent economic movements aim to pursue the common good by considering both the community good and the personal good. We take the example of conscious capitalism or the economy of communion which pursue the common good in slightly different ways.
Conscious capitalism was popularized by John Mackey, founder of Whole Foods Market, and has four characteristics that are intended to move members of the organization towards a pursuit of the common good: spiritual openness, servant leaders, a conscious culture, and a high purpose that transcends the pursuit of profit maximization.
The economy of communion is based on an intuition of Chiara Lubich, founder of the Focolare Christian Movement, following her observations on the contrasts between poverty and wealth in the city of Sao Paulo in Brazil. This movement refers explicitly to Catholic spirituality and aims to participate in the common good through profit sharing and an ethical and responsible organization.
​
Both movements seek the common good as they pursue the community good as a prerequisite for personal good and consider personal good as a goal of the community good. There are, however, nuances between these two movements. In particular, while they both adopt a broad understanding of stakeholders that includes shareholders, managers, employees, suppliers, customers and competitors, the economy of communion specifically considers the personal good of the poorest members of society.
The quest for the common good may also give rise to some of the tensions that we examine in this article.
https://hal-audencia.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01625348/document
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3118-6
An introductory video to the article: the presentation of the notion of the common good: https://www.grace-recherche.fr/publications/the-common-good-of-the-firm-and-humanistic-management-conscious-capitalism-and-economy-of-communion/
Common Good, a practical guide for action
The common good can help individuals avoid an excessive focus on the scientification of work, in particular technical accuracy, technical neutrality and technical abstraction by providing an ethical protocol that leads them to question the different community levels involved, the different orientations pursued, and the concrete difficulties of their work. This ethical protocol consists in workers asking themselves the three following questions:
​
- Which higher community good am I pursuing through my work?
​
- Which economic, social, moral and environmental orientations am I contributing to?
​
- How do my work assignments contribute to the personal good of other members of the community?
​
These questions should enable workers to envisage simultaneously a wider community good, greater human development and how to satisfy the personal good of each member. Unlike technical and disembodied standards and processes, the common good principles (subsidiarity, totality, teleological hierarchy, long-term commitment, reality and unity) can lead workers to have more autonomy to make sound decisions.
​
​
Why is it so difficult to search for the common good ?
​
Our belief is as follows: if so many of us in the workplace have given up the quest for the common good, it is because we are trapped by the libertarian fantasy induced by neoliberal ideology. This ideology makes us believe that it can help us regain our individual freedom, which it presents as the strongest value, perhaps an exclusive value. But this freedom is illusory, because rather than being a freedom to think or to act, it is a freedom to deploy our energy in the service of the society of production and consumption, a freedom to succeed, to manage our career and to be efficient.
​
To rediscover the path towards the common good implies becoming aware of the erosion of true freedoms within our consumer societies. Arendt's works on The Human Condition (1958) and the Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) can help us to look at recent forms of totalitarianism, which result in our Western societies not from the establishment of new despotic regimes, but from the agony of politics in the spheres of the economy.
​
Are individuals subjected to family and societal pressure based on the cult of professional success condemned to become socially conditioned subjects and to renounce their singularity? In a work environment characterized by an increased demand for performance and a control of visible and objective tasks, are individuals forced to act in accordance with the rules of the game of inter-individual competition and to renounce solidarity? Similarly, do individuals gradually give up their creative ability and spontaneity as they progress in their careers?
​
By becoming aware of this weakening of singularity, solidarity and spontaneity that results from the libertarian fantasy, we can relearn to privilege true freedoms, in particular the freedom to seek the common good.
​
​
​