Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 119
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Airike, Peppi-Emilia Rotter, Julia P. and Mark-Herbert, Cecilia 2016. Corporate motives for multi-stakeholder collaboration– corporate social responsibility in the electronics supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 131, p. 639.

    Doan, Michael D. 2016. Responsibility for Collective Inaction and the Knowledge Condition. Social Epistemology, p. 1.

    Doorn, Neelke 2016. Governance Experiments in Water Management: From Interests to Building Blocks. Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 22, Issue. 3, p. 755.

    Ellison, Erin Rose and Langhout, Regina Day 2016. Collaboration across difference: a joint autoethnographic examination of power and whiteness in the higher education anti-cuts movement. Race Ethnicity and Education, p. 1.

    Fragnière, Augustin 2016. Climate change and individual duties. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,

    Mels, Tom 2016. The trouble with representation: landscape and environmental justice. Landscape Research, Vol. 41, Issue. 4, p. 417.

    Neuhäuser, Christian 2016. Handbuch Verantwortung.

    Papadopoulos, Angelika 2016. Migrating Qualifications: The Ethics of Recognition. British Journal of Social Work, p. bcw038.

    Pitts, Andrea J. 2016. Gloria E. Anzaldúa'sAutohistoria-teoríaas an Epistemology of Self-Knowledge/Ignorance. Hypatia, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 352.

    Preston, Christopher J. and Wickson, Fern 2016. Broadening the lens for the governance of emerging technologies: Care ethics and agricultural biotechnology. Technology in Society, Vol. 45, p. 48.

    Rannila, Päivi and Mitchell, Don 2016. Syracuse, sidewalks, and snow: the slippery realities of public space. Urban Geography, p. 1.

    Reinecke, Juliane and Ansari, Shaz 2016. Taming Wicked Problems: The Role of Framing in the Construction of Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53, Issue. 3, p. 299.

    Uhde, Zuzana 2016. From Women's Struggles to Distorted Emancipation. International Feminist Journal of Politics, p. 1.

    Weidel, Timothy 2016. Ideology and the Harms of Self-Deception: Why We Should Act to End Poverty. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 19, Issue. 4, p. 945.

    Acquier, Aurélien Valiorgue, Bertrand and Daudigeos, Thibault 2015. Sharing the Shared Value: A Transaction Cost Perspective on Strategic CSR Policies in Global Value Chains. Journal of Business Ethics,

    Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko and McNeill, Desmond 2015. Post 2015: a new era of accountability?. Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 10.

    Graness, Anke 2015. Is the debate on ‘global justice’ a global one? Some considerations in view of modern philosophy in Africa. Journal of Global Ethics, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 126.

    Hennchen, Esther 2015. Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria: Where Do Responsibilities End?. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 129, Issue. 1, p. 1.

    Illingworth, Patricia and Parmet, Wendy E. 2015. The Right to Health: Why It Should Apply to Immigrants. Public Health Ethics, Vol. 8, Issue. 2, p. 148.

    Lopes Cardozo, Mieke T A Sawyer, Jennifer and Talavera Simoni, Maria Luisa 2015. Machismo and Mamitas at School: Exploring the Agency of Teachers for Social and Gender Justice in Bolivian Education. The European Journal of Development Research, Vol. 27, Issue. 4, p. 574.



  • Iris Marion Young (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 January 2006

The essay theorizes the responsibilities moral agents may be said to have in relation to global structural social processes that have unjust consequences. How ought moral agents, whether individual or institutional, conceptualize their responsibilities in relation to global injustice? I propose a model of responsibility from social connection as an interpretation of obligations of justice arising from structural social processes. I use the example of justice in transnational processes of production, distribution and marketing of clothing to illustrate operations of structural social processes that extend widely across regions of the world.

The social connection model of responsibility says that all agents who contribute by their actions to the structural processes that produce injustice have responsibilities to work to remedy these injustices. I distinguish this model from a more standard model of responsibility, which I call a liability model. I specify five features of the social connection model of responsibility that distinguish it from the liability model: it does not isolate perpetrators; it judges background conditions of action; it is more forward looking than backward looking; its responsibility is essentially shared; and it can be discharged only through collective action. The final section of the essay begins to articulate parameters of reasoning that agents can use for thinking about their own action in relation to structural injustice.Thanks to David Alexander, Daniel Drezner, David Owen, and Ellen Frankel Paul for comments on an earlier version of this essay. Thanks to David Newstone for research assistance.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *