Dr. Christian Hirt, University of Graz, Austria, presented this seminar entitled The concept of responsibility in Europe and Japan: An analysis of cultural difference on 13th February 2014 at the Whitaker Institute, NUI Galway.

1. 1
The concept of responsibility in Europe and Japan –
an analysis of cultural difference
Christian Hirt
Department of Human Resource Management
University of Graz, Austria
christian.hirt@uni-graz.at
2Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Introduction
Particularities of Japanese culture
Occidental and Japanese concept of responsibility
Implications
Mini case studies
Discussion
Article
Ungericht, B and Hirt, C (2013), The concept of responsibility
in Europe and Japan – an analysis of cultural difference, In:
Alexander N. Krylov (Ed.), Corporate Social Responsibility:
Wirtschaftsmodelle – Moral – Erfolg – Nachhaltigkeit, West-
Ost-Verlag Berlin, 2013, pp. 321-336
Agenda
3Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
A thought-provoking impulse – East & West
Source: Liu Yong
4Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
“… drying themselves with wet towels, eating meals
cold, drinking wine hot, slurping soup after dinner
and putting traffic lights behind an intersection;
smiling when they are sad, wouldn’t take off a hat
but shoes instead; are not afraid of final but rather
entrance examinations … In Japan many things
are different.” (H.W. Vahlefeld 1969)
日日日日
本本本本
What kind of people are they?

2. 2
5Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Social concepts in Japan &
relevance for management
Family conceptGroup ideology
Harmony
Moral concept &
values
Societal influence on
behaviour in a
Japanese company
6Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Vocabulary of human relationships
Group orientation
Hierarchy
Respect
âg‹`—“giri”
âgŠÃ‚¦“amae”
‰¶“on”
lŠÔŠÖŒW“ningen kankei”
special
lifelong
obligations
one‘s
indebtedness
to others
“if Japanese society is seen
as a network of interlocking
relationships, hierarchically
arranged, the strands of that
net are formed by ningen
kankei”
dependency – glue
that holds the
Japanese society
together (Doi, 1982)
7Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
General assumption of the paper
Different concepts of responsibility across cultures,
particularly between West (occident) and East (Japan)
regarding “acceptance of responsibilities”
regarding “defense mechanisms”
Philosophical and historical development show effects on
acceptance and ascription of responsibility to companies
(organisational responsibility)
Empirically traceable in culture specific case studies
8Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Based on causality and the individual (Bayertz 1995)
Exculpatory response (‘responsum’) to an action
(cf. Schwemmer 1985, Körtner 1999)
Responsibility can only be ascribed to an agent who is
able to act intentionally and reflect the consequence of
its action: a psycho-physic unity (cf. Kant 1974)
Essence
Ontological dimension: causal action by autonomous
individuals with specific abilities: intentional behavior,
capability of taking action and freedom to act
Normative dimension: focus on individual blame and
individualized retaliation/punishment
Juridical basis; legalistic culture of guilt
Occidental concept of responsibility

3. 3
9Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Based on intersubjectivity and community
Web of obligations (cf. Benedict 1993) and relatedness
(cf. Doi 1982)
Responsibility for individual action is not clearly defined
and is placed on the collective
Responsibility in terms of duties or obligations pertaining to
a person’s role or position (original meaning) and assigning
blame when an untoward occurrence is observed (influence
from Meiji period) (cf. Hagiwara 1992)
negative connotation
Essence
Collective responsibility implicitly incurred by webs of
relation
Honour, status and relations dominate the causal context
Symbolic basis; moral culture of shame
Japanese concept of responsibility
10Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Occident: Individualised culture of guilt;
causally evidenced
Japan: Group responsibility with individualised
scapegoat function
Consequences on two levels
Societal level: how to ascribe responsibility to organisations
Organisational level: how to accept responsibility and develop
defence mechanisms
The modality of how the ascription of responsibility is
perceived or neglected is a reflection of the culture specific
concept of responsibility
Organisational responsibility
11Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Occident: focus on punishment but organisations can be
hardly seen as independent and responsible agents
- Action, intention and blame are always attributed
to individuals
- Causal consequence of the action is central
- A punishment of ‘the organisation’ is considered unfair
Japan: focus on subordination and group membership
which dominate the aspect of punishment
- Concept of collective responsibility
- Consequence of the action is secondary
- Identification of a ‘sole individual’ is considered unfair
Societal implications
12Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Occident: acceptance of responsibility = admission of guilt
and coping with the consequences of one’s action
(reform, amelioration, compensation)
- Defence mechanism is outer directed; focus on conflicts
and not harmony of interests
- If a negligent individual cannot be identified, nobody is
responsible (neither the individual nor the organisation)
Japan: active acceptance of responsibility is not wanted
- A ‘symbolic’ acceptance of blame by an individual
(‘scapegoat’) is separated from the ‘actual’ acceptance
of responsibility by the collective
- Defence mechanism is Japanese culture of apology;
mode protects the group
Organisational implications

4. 4
13Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Japanese organisation and supermarket incident
- Instant symbolic act of apology (scapegoat)
- No culprit has to be located, the individual is
responsible qua role
- Preservation of harmony
Swiss organisation and elevator incident in Japan
- No apology or intention to accept responsibility
- Apology interpreted as admission of guilt
- Based on juridical facts and legal framework
Culture specific handling – Two mini case studies
14Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Conclusion
Occidental context:
- Capability of accepting responsibility is linked to the
existence of a ‘body’
- Collectives are not regarded as potential subjects of
responsibility
- Danger of a societal vacuum of responsibility
Japanese context:
- Representative acceptance of responsibility for the
collective
- Aims at protection of the core group and preservation of
harmony
- Danger of a mere symbolic acceptance of responsibility
15Christian Hirt • NUI Galway • February 2014 • Concept of Responsibility
Think about the concept of responsibility in the English
speaking countries.
Is the concept of responsibility context specific?
Is there a difference in a business context, private
context, political context?
Critically reflect this concept with regard to Fukushima.
Think about the relevance of this concept/these
challenges in international HR, e.g. working in
international teams?
Discussion