The value (and surplus value) of the sense of responsibility in economics

from Ossigeno 14

Topics

«We should try to be happy, just to set an example». The verses of Jacques Prévert, with their easygoing lyricism, highlight a rather clear outcome from social research: the context in which we make decisions is a fundamental element in shaping them. For this reason, a good policy maker must design (specifically, we talk about behavioural design) interventions and regulations that enable the relationship between the economy and society to develop in synergy. Consumers with their choices, businesses as the neuralgic node of the system: in a context of social responsibility, the economy thrives.

It is true, however, that we must be careful not to let words become trends, and in times of great turbulence like the actual we are living in, it is precisely up to economists to define what it means to be a responsible consumer or business. And to propose adequate indicators for a metric of happiness. In economics, optimism and responsibility introduce a different perspective: economic success is not merely about the accumulation of wealth, but is reflected in a community’s ability to ensure prosperity and widespread well-being, based on parameters that go beyond mere economic output. GDP is an essential but limited indicator, and even national accounting has absorbed this evolution. While it quantifies production and consumption, it overlooks critical factors such as environmental impact, wealth distribution, and employment stability. Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach suggests a broader focus, emphasising aspects such as access to education, public health, and social inclusion as indicators of genuine progress. A responsible economic system is not limited to generating income, but invests in the conditions that enable individuals to lead dignified and meaningful lives.

Therefore, the role of responsibility as a driving force behind economic development becomes crucial. This perspective shifts the focus from the short to the long term, favouring strategies that aim for sustainable well-being rather than immediate returns. However, this raises a fundamental question: is it possible to measure responsibility in economics? To answer this, we must consider alternative metrics that take into account environmental sustainability, social justice, and the redistribution of opportunities. In this context, Italy’s Istat has developed the Index of equitable and sustainable well-being (BES), which integrates parameters relating to quality of life, health, and ecological impact, offering a more nuanced picture of a country’s economic conditions. Approaches 54 like the Human Development Index (HDI), the United Nations’ World Happiness Report, and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) criteria also provide broader measures of progress on a global scale.

However, the introduction of these metrics is not always welcomed. Andrew Winston, in the Harvard Business Review, has highlighted, in Why Business Leaders Must Resist the Anti-ESG Movement, how a hostile rhetoric towards sustainable investments has developed in recent years. Some critics indeed consider them a distraction from profits or a volatile trend. Yet, data shows that companies with strong ESG policies also have greater economic resilience and a superior ability to adapt to global crises. Furthermore, economic responsibility is not limited to the adoption of sustainable policies; it also concerns the ability to foresee and mitigate the long-term effects of business decisions. The most forward-thinking companies not only protect their reputation but also generate added value for all their stakeholders, promoting more equitable and sustainable growth.

But does being a responsible company come at a cost? To some extent, yes. Companies that adopt sustainable business models often face higher initial investments. For example, reducing CO2 emissions, improving working conditions, and ensuring transparent governance can reduce profit margins in the short term. However, in the long run, responsibility translates into a competitive advantage. Sustainable businesses reduce the risk of reputational damage, attract valuable talent, and build customer loyalty. Moreover, adopting responsible business models can create new market opportunities and strengthen global competitiveness.

At the organisational level, the role of the CEO is also evolving. While executives still hold immense power and earn extraordinary salaries (the median is $13 million per year), their job has become more complex. Historically, control over physical capital was the primary tool of management, but today more than 60% of the value of S&P 500 companies is linked to intangible assets such as R&D, data, and brands, making the relationship between investment and results less predictable. Moreover, company boundaries are more blurred: millions of workers are external but crucial to the business, and digitalisation has reduced the CEO’s direct authority.

At the same time, social and political pressure is redefining the corporate mission, with demands for more care for employees and sustainability. However, many of these promises are difficult to maintain without sacrificing profits or efficiency. To be efficient today, CEOs must manage intangible capital, coordinate data and resources with agility, and focus on the long-term interests of the company, avoiding ideological drifts and media distractions. The election of Donald Trump in the United States appears to have initiated a backlash against traditional economics, but it is still too early to consider the flag of social responsibility lowered.

In such a fluctuating context, critical thinking becomes a key skill for navigating uncertainty and making informed decisions. For the American Economic Association, Siegfried and Colander have emphasised the importance of critical thinking in economic analysis. This skill is articulated in two levels: little-think, which concerns the use of established tools within the discipline, and big-think, which involves the ability to question existing models and assumptions. In a context where economic responsibility requires bold choices, critical thinking becomes an essential tool for tackling market complexity and anticipating its developments. Sometimes, recourse to lyricism may seem like a shortcut, but Dylan Thomas wrote in a famous 1947 poem: Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night. These verses are an anthem to responsibility, urging us not to yield in the face of the inevitable.

Uncertainty is a constant in the social sciences and in economics. An experiment published in PNAS in 2022 demonstrated how the same dataset can lead to opposite conclusions: out of 73 research teams, 50% did not reach a consensus, while the remainder split evenly between those who supported one thesis and those who opposed it. Only 5% of the result variability could be explained by the methodologies adopted, while 95% stemmed from a hidden universe of uncertainty. In the face of this complexity, economic responsibility becomes an anchor. It cannot be reduced to a mere statistical error or a marginal variable in economic models. Nor can we succumb to the fatalism of those who give up on influencing reality. Uncertainty must be accepted, but also governed through critical thinking.

In evolutionary biology, the debate between contingency and convergence also helps to interpret economic phenomena. Convergence suggests that every event follows an inevitable fate, while contingency explains evolution as a series of continuously transforming micro-events, often unpredictable. Economics follows similar dynamics: a responsible entrepreneur knows that the market is not perfectly controllable, just as it is impossible to predict with certainty the impact of every decision. Accepting this complexity does not mean abandoning action, but rather acting with greater awareness.

The concept of path dependency, illustrated by Borges in The Garden of Forking Paths, shows how past choices influence the future, limiting the available options. In economics, this translates into the distinction between systems based on strong and weak ties:

 

In strong-tie contexts, success depends on a few key elements. A football team with an extraordinary star player may win thanks to his or her talent, even if the other players are mediocre.

In weak-tie systems, however, the result depends on the weakest element. In a rowing eight with coxswain race, one rower out of sync is enough to slow down the entire crew.

Economic sustainability moves along this delicate balance: it cannot rely solely on a few factors of excellence, but must ensure widespread solidity. And how can we ensure this balance? An interesting study on the London subway shows the value of adaptation and continuous experimentation. During a 2014 strike, commuters were forced to change their habits. The result? 5% of people found more efficient alternative routes, which they continued to use even after the strike ended.

This example suggests that many economic choices stem from sub-optimal routines. Active experimentation – even when forced – can generate positive changes, both for individuals and businesses. We experienced this during the Covid years, when forced digitalisation accelerated processes that were once considered almost impossible to achieve. A responsible business keeps a steady course, navigating the sea of uncertainty, attentive to the dimension of meaning, the ultimate significance of what is done.

In a similar vein, social responsibility is not just a strategy but an exercise in humility. It does not mean abandoning economic rationality, but rather recognising the limits of absolute control and embracing uncertainty as part of the decision-making process. It is the life in which we make our decisions daily, consciously or not, leading us to the question: how do we approach an uncertain future in a socially responsible company? Brian Klaas, professor of Global Politics at University College London, argues in Fluke: Chance, Chaos and Why Everything We Do Matters that uncertainty is inherent to life, and that the interaction between billions of Sapiens is a classic example of chaotic dynamics, in which small changes in any part of the system can generate unforeseen and non-linear consequences in a very distant part of the same.

Without invoking the overused butterfly effect, the perfect metaphor is Voltaire’s Candide: «Tend your own garden». In a global context of black swans, unpredictable shocks, and disruptive scenarios, the principle of responsibility becomes the green thumb of happy decisions. The further macro-consequences of a single decision seem distant and elusive, the more awareness and clarity of strategy and vision become the complex path to follow, under the banner of a principle of operational hope.

 

Bibliography
Canova L., Economia dell’ottimismo, Il Saggiatore, 2025
Colander D. & Siegfried J., What Does Critical Thinking Mean in Teaching Economics: The Big and the Little of It, American Economic Association, 2021
Klaas B., Fluke: Chance, Chaos and Why Everything We Do Matters, John Murray Press, 2024
Nussbaum M., Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton University Press, 2010, Edizioni Il Mulino, 2014
Winston A., Why Business Leaders Must Resist the Anti-ESG Movement, Harvard Business Review, 2023