Corporate property rights

Corporate property rights present an interesting challenge to the liberal conception of property rights, for it is unclear that the self-respect of individuals is promoted by the existence of a system of property rights for corporations. I argue that it is difficult even to identify who the individuals are who are the owners of large corporations, and why these individuals should be given the same claims, protections and immunities as other property rights holders since the liabilities of corporate property rights holders are not the same as of those, for instance, who own their own homes. In this paper I first try to understand who it is who owns the large corporation. Secondly, I show that the limited liability of these corporate property owners makes the justification of corporate property rights quite difficult, from the classical liberal perspective. I end with a few brief remarks on changes in legal policy which would be consistent with my arguments on the nature and justification of corporate property rights. Larry May is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University. He was awarded with the Exxon Education Foundation Grant during the Summer of 1982. His most important publications are Vicarious Agency and Corporate Responsibility (Philosophical Studies 43, pp. 69–82, 1983), On Conscience (American Philosophical Quarterly 20, pp. 57–67, 1983), Professional Actions and the Liabilities of Professional Associations (Business and Professional Ethics Journal 2, pp. 1–14, Fall 1982), and Sexual Harassment (Social Theory and Practice 6, pp. 249–280, 1980).     

Epistemological and ethical considerations in conceptualizing and implementing human resource management

As an example of applied social science, the field of human resource management is used to show that ethical problems are not only those of carrying out research, of professional conduct, and of the distribution fairness of social science knowledge. A largely overlooked ethical issue is also the implicit choices that are made as an integral part of research and implementation. First, an analysis is undertaken of the implicit assumptions, values and goals that derive from the conception of human problems in work organizations as managing human resources. Secondly, it is argued that such a conception is in fact a socially constructed reality with real consequences and not a reflection of objective states of human and social nature with which we have to live. Thirdly, to the extent that our implicit assumptions are in part based upon conceptual choices that are made by individuals or as a collective act of a discipline or work organization, the development of an ethical framework that could guide such choices becomes a crucial challenge for business ethics.H. Peter Dachler currently holds the chair for organizational psychology at the University of St. Gall, Switzerland. He received his graduate training in industrial/organizational psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana and subsequently taught in the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland, College Park. He was a fellow for two years at the International Institute of Management in the Science Center, Berlin, and is on the editorial boards of various international and American scientific journals. He has published mainly in the areas of motivation, leadership, organization theory, and the theoretical and practical implications of a constructionist epistemology for employee assessment, participation and leadership. Georges Enderle is a senior lecturer for business ethics at the University of St. Gall, Switzerland. Since 1983 he has been Director of the Institute for Business Ethics. He is the author of Sicherung des Existenzminimums im nationalen und internationalen Kontext — eine wirtschaftsethische Studie [Securing the minimal standard of living in the national and international context: A business ethics perspective]. He has written various articles on business ethics.     

Corporate democracy and the rights of shareholders

Some have argued that because of weaknesses in corporate democracy, there is widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. I describe a number of horror stories that shareholders might tell to support this claim. Then I argue that despite appearances to the contrary, there is not widespread abuse of shareholders' rights in American securities markets. This is because (i) corporations, when doing things that look abusive, are generally violating neither the legal rights nor the charter rights of shareholders and (ii) shareholders — in their role as shareholders — have no other rights than these. William B. Irvine is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wright State University. He is the author of The Ethics of Investing, Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 6, no. 3.     

Saturday Review's annual advertising awards

Saturday Review's long, commendable effort to identify corporations willing to promote the general good through their advertising was damaged in 1977 because of procedural changes in the awards. Prior to 1977 the named judges made the important distinction between public-service (non-image) and public-relations (corporate image) advertising. But in 1977 the judges were not named and the public service/public relations distinction was eliminated, replaced by the single category of public spirited ads. Most of these ads, however, were not public spirited, but were public relations ads. But in 1978 this deception was ended by the empaneling of a new kind of jury, one drawn from the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications. James Richard Bennett is Professor of English at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. He is the editor of Style, a Journal of Stylistics. He won the Fulbright Teaching Award in Yugoslavia in 1968–69. His most important publication is: Prose Style: A Historical Approach Through Studies, 1971.I wish to thank Professor Leonard White of the Department of Economics at the University of Arkansas for his advice concerning several of the ads discussed herein.     

Beyond bean counting: Establishing high ethical standards in the public accounting profession

Business professions are increasingly faced with the question of how to best monitor the ethical behavior of their members. Conflicts could exist between a profession's desire to self-regulate and its accountability to the public at large. This study examines how members of one profession, public accounting, evaluate the relative effectiveness of various self-regulatory and externally imposed mechanisms for promoting a climate of high ethical behavior. Specifically, the roles of independent public accountants, regulatory and rule setting agencies, and undergraduate accounting education are investigated. Of 461 possible respondents, 230 questionnaires (a 49.6% response rate) indicated that the profession's own rule setting body (The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) and the use of peer review were perceived as the most effective mechanisms, while government regulation was ranked least. Respondents also evaluated the extent to which ethics should be covered in the accounting curriculum. For every course, the CPAs believed a greater emphasis on ethics is appropriate than presently exists. Suggestions for more effectively integrating ethics into accounting courses are made. Finally, respondents were also asked whether in answering the questionnaire they used a definition of ethics as either the Professional Code of Conduct or a moral and philosphical framework for guiding beliefs. Those who viewed ethics as abiding by a professional code had more confidence in the mechanisms addressed in this study to aid the public accounting profession's ability to ensure high ethical standards of conduct. Methodological implications of this distinction for future studies in business ethics are discussed. Jeffrey R. Cohen is Assistant Professor of Accounting at Boston College. He received his Ph.D. from The University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He is a C.M.A. and a Peat Marwick Research Fellow. His articles have appeared in the Journal of Accounting Research, Decision Sciences and The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review. His work on Ethics has appeared in Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting, and The CPA Journal. Laurie W. Pant is Assistant Professor of Accounting at Boston College. She holds an M.B.A. and a D.B.A. from Boston University and an M.Ed. from Emory University. She serves on the editorial board of Issues in Accounting Education. Her articles on Ethics have appeared in Issues in Accounting Education, Management Accounting and The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1989 American Accounting Association National Meeting.     

A note on government policy and the new ‘intrapreneurship’ in Bulgaria

Conclusion I have attempted in this paper to highlight the recent emergence and rapid growth of a particular type of intrapreneurship in the Bulgarian economy. This intrapreneurship involves the creation of new smaller establishments within existing large-scale industrial firms. These semi-autonomous auxiliary plants are exempt from part of the bureaucracy which constrains the larger addition, they have provided a higher rate of technological advance, a better supply of consumer goods, a greater utilization of labor resources, and a higher return to human capital.Only through the continued development of a small-firm sector can the Bulgarian economy meet the challenge currently posed by its western counterparts. Whether the next step from intrapreneurship to entrepreneurship is taken may hold the key for industrial development in Bulgaria.     

The indefensibility of insider trading

The article, Inside Trading Revisited, has taken the stance that insider trading is neither unethical nor economically inefficient. Attacking my arguments to the contrary developed in an earlier article, The Ethics of Inside Trading (Journal of Business Ethics, 1989) this article constructs careful arguments and even appeals to Adam Smith to justify its conclusions. In my response to this article I shall clarify my position as well as that of Smith to support my counter-contention that insider trading is both unethical and inefficient. Patricia H. Werhane is the Henry J. Wirtenberger Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola University, Chicago. She is the author or editor of seven books including Ethical Issues in Business,edited with Tom Donaldson, in its third edition, Persons, Rights, and Corporations, Profits and Responsibility,and Philosophical Issues in Human Rights,edited with David Ozar and A. R. Gini. She is past president of the Society for Value Inquiry, founding member, past president and Executive Director of the Society of Business Ethics, and Chairperson of the Ethics Advisory Council of Arthur Andersen & Co. She serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Business Ethics,the Journal of Value-Based Management, and Public Affairs Quarterly,and is Editor-in-Chief of Business Ethics Quarterly.Her book, Adam Smith and his Legacy for Modern Capitalismis forthcoming with Oxford University Press.     

Board-management relations in small firms: The paradox of simultaneous independence and interdependence

The author introduces constructs based on neo-classical and socio-economic assumptions, and argues that board-management relations should be characterized by both independence and interdependence. Interdependence is especially important in small firms. The article presents a model of directorates from research about directorates based on agency theory assumptions. This model is supplemented with constructs from the theory of contractual relations. Whilst traditional literature tends to focus upon independence from an agency theory perspective, this article argues that it is necessary to use more than one dimension of attributes regarding the board-management relations in order to understand the board's contribution to company performance, and that trust and solidarity is especially important in small firms. Board-management relations described by simultaneous independence and interdependence are proposed to give the highest contribution to company performance. The theoretical propositions are exemplified and supported by results of a field survey of directorates in small firms.     

Deception in commercial negotiation

Buyers and sellers of inputs of production, to the degree that they must negotiate directly with each other and cannot have recourse to more impersonal markets, share in certain aspects of bilateral monopoly. Under these circumstances, and assuming profit maximizing goals for each, deception often seems to be an unavoidable characteristic of negotiation.... I hate, detest, and can't bear a lie, not because I am straighter than the rest of us, but simply because it appalls me. There is a taint of death, a flavor of mortality in lies ... — JOSEPH CONRAD, Heart of Darkness.     

Justice: The root of american business ideology and ethics

Although there are many conceptions of Justice, these different perceptions can provide many interesting insights into a business person's ethical standards as well as that person's decision-making processes. Using the Bishops' Pastoral Letter on the U.S. Economy as the basis for asking questions about justice, twenty-four business executives were interviewed about their conception of justice. An analysis of these interviews reveals that this group of businesspeople operated under very different conceptions of Justice at the Macroenvironmental and Microenvironmental levels. This result has some interesting implications not only for those scholars concerned with business ethics but for everyone who has a stake in business education.Men are called good, chiefly on account of their Justice. Cicero, 56 B.C. Ideology is applied philosophy. Lodge, 1986 Richard McGowan, S. J. is an Assistant Professor of Operations and Strategic Management at Boston College. His research focus involves examining both the rationale behind business and public policy decisions as well as determining the effectiveness of these policy measures. Some of his recent publications include Deciphering the Japanese Import Quota, Policy Studies Journal (1988) and Public Policy Measures and Cigarette Sales: An ARIMA Intervention Analysis Study JAI Social Issues Management Volume (1989).     

Lying and intentions

In this essay I criticize recent attempts to prove that the concept of lying does not include the intent to deceive. I argue that examples by Isenberg and Carson fail to prove that one can lie without intending to deceive and, furthermore, that untoward consequences would follow if these authors were correct. I conclude that since intending to deceive is indeed a necessary condition of lying, the class of statements that constitute lies is smaller than what Isenberg et al. would suggest. Hence the class of deceptive advertisements is also correspondingly smaller. Gary E. Jones is Associate Professor at the Philosophy Department of the University of San Diego. He won the Review of Metaphysics Dissertation Essay Contest, 1977 and he holds fellowship of the University of Cincinnati and the University of Tennessee. His most important publications are The State and the Right to Health Care (in Philosophical Quarterly), Rights and Desires (in Ethics), Vindication, Hume, and Induction (in Canadian Journal of Philosophy), Engelhardt on Abortion and the Euthenasia of Defective Infants (in Linacre Quarterly) and Clendinnen, Jackson and Induction (in Philosophy of Science).     

Talk of the Network: A Complex Systems Look at the Underlying Process of Word-of-Mouth

Though word-of-mouth (w-o-m) communications is a pervasive and intriguing phenomenon, little is known on its underlying process of personal communications. Moreover as marketers are getting more interested in harnessing the power of w-o-m, for e-business and other net related activities, the effects of the different communications types on macro level marketing is becoming critical. In particular we are interested in the breakdown of the personal communication between closer and stronger communications that are within an individual's own personal group (strong ties) and weaker and less personal communications that an individual makes with a wide set of other acquaintances and colleagues (weak ties).We use a technique borrowed from Complex Systems Analysis called stochastic cellular automata in order to generate data and analyze the results so that answers to our main research issues could be ascertained. The following summarizes the impact of strong and weak ties on the speed of acceptance of a new product:The influence of weak ties is at least as strong as the influence of strong ties. Despite the relative inferiority of the weak tie parameter in the model's assumptions, their effect approximates or exceeds that of strong ties, in all stages of the product life cycle.External marketing efforts (e.g., advertising) are effective. However, beyond a relatively early stage of the growth cycle of the new product, their efficacy quickly diminishes and strong and weak ties become the main forces propelling growth. The results clearly indicate that information dissemination is dominated by both weak and strong w-o-m, rather than by advertising.The effect of strong ties diminishes as personal network size decreases. Market attributes were also found to mediate the effects of weak and strong ties. When personal networks are small, weak ties were found to have a stronger impact on information dissemination than strong ties.     

From Adam Smith to the American Catholic bishops: Debating visions of economic life

Considerable controversy was stirred by the contrast between the specific approaches to public policy contained in the first draft of the Catholic bishops' letter on the U.S. economy and the policies favored by the Reagan administration. However, a much more basic contrast actually existed between the bishops' underlying vision of economic life and contemporary capitalism. The pastoral challenges a separation between moral criteria and economic activity that is deeply embedded in modernity itself. Indeed, the splitting off of economic life from its moral-religious matrix is seen by the bishops' critics as a positive, defining feature of democratic capitalism. The critics see the separate economic and moral-religious spheres related by due balance; the bishops, while acknowledging an autonomy to economic life, emphasize that its fundamental choices remain moral. The bishops (and, for different reasons, their critics) have preferred to minimize the contrast between the letter's vision and the contemporary economy. They avoid any clearcut judgment on the economic system by stressing pragmatism and reforms; but implicitly they are granting a strictly conditioned acceptance of reformist capitalism, the condition being the system's openness to questioning and change. Peter Steinfels is Editor of Commonweal Magazine and he is the author of The Neoconservatives (Simon and Schuster, 1979).     

What is business ethics? A reply to peter drucker

In his What is Business Ethics? Peter Drucker accuses business ethics of singling out business unfairly for special ethical treatment, of subordinating ethical to political concerns, and of being, not ethics at all, but ethical chic. We contend that Drucker's denunciation of business ethics rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the field. This article is a response to his charges and an effort to clarify the nature, scope and purpose of business ethics.     

‘I am we’ consciousness and dialog as organizational ethics method

There is a practical five-step method of ethics dialog developed by John Woolman, an 18th c. businessman and ethical activist, that was used by Robert K. Greenleaf, a 20th c. A.T.&T. Corporate Vice-President, that includes: (a) friendly, emotive affect; (b) discussion of mutual commonalities; (c) discussion of issue entanglements; (d) discussion of potential experimental solutions; and, (e) trial and feedback discussion. This method of dialog appears to proceed with a type of consciousness considered by John Woolman and Bernard Lonergan as one where the I is conscious that I and Others are part of a more foundational, larger and prior We. This type of dialog is different than Socratic dialog. The corresponding type of consciousness is different than the more derivative, e.g., two allies being united in their response to a common goal. It is also different than Buber's I and Thou appreciative consciounsess of the interestingness, value, diversity, and uniqueness of others. Woolman dialog as seen in four cases appears to be a concrete method that has some value both as an end in itself and as instrumental means that can: be issue effective, help build ethical organization/community culture, and help facilitate peaceful, evolutionary change and development. Limitations of the method are also considered. The method may also be a several hundred year anticipation of experiment based pragmatist philosophy that is anthropologically sensitive to cultural entanglements.

John Donne (17th c.)

Richard P. Nielsen is a professor in the Department of Organizational Studies, School of Management, Boston College. Related articles of his include: Dialogic Leadership As Organizational Ethics Action (Praxis) Method, Journal of Business Ethics(October 1990); Negotiating As An Ethics Action (Praxis) Strategy, Journal of Business Ethics(May 1989); Changing Unethical Organizational Behavior, Academy of Management Executive(May 1989); Arendt's Action Philosophy and the Manager as Eichmann, Richard III, Faust, or Institution Citizen, California Management Review(Spring 1984); and Cooperative Strategy, Strategic Management Journal(September–October 1988).     

Friedman fallacies

Milton Friedman's article, The Social Responsibility of Business Is To Increase Its Profits, owes its appeal to the rhetorical devices of simplicity, authority, and finality. More careful consideration reveals oversimplification and ambiguity that conceals empirical errors and logical fallacies. It is false that business does, or would, operate exclusively in economic terms, that managers concentrate obsessively on profitability, and that ethics can be marginalized. These errors reflect basic contradictions: an apolitical political base, altruistic agents of selfishness, and good deriving from greed. Colin Grant is a Professor in the Department of Religious Studies at Mount Allison University. He teaches an undergraduate course on The Ethics and Ethos of Business. His article Giving Ethics the Business appeared in JBE 7 (1988), pp. 489–495. Some of the journals in which he has published are: The Christian Century, The Dalhousie Review, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Modern Theology, Religious Studies, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, The Toronto Journal of Theology.     

Humanitarian versus organizational morality — A survey of attitudes concerning business ethics among managing directors

This paper presents the results of an empirical study of attitudes towards ethical questions in business life among managing directors. They study covers more than 240 Swedish firms of all sizes, from different lines of business, and it is based on a solid theoretical framework. It should be seen as a part of the author's effort to develop a model explaining ethical organizational behaviour. Among the most important conclusions of the study is the concept of corporate moral view. It seems possible to distinguish between the humanitarian morality versus the organizational morality, depending on who's interests the decision maker prefers to take in a moral dilemma.Ulrica Nylén is a Doctoral Candidate in Organizational Theory with a special interest in ethical values and their impact on organizational behavior. She is a member of staff at the Umeå Business School, Sweden, were she is the teaching the subject of Management.     

Common knowledge of the second kind

Although most of us know that human beings cannot and should not be replaced by computers, we have great difficulties saying why this is so. This paradox is largely the result of institutionalizing several fundamental misconceptions as to the nature of both trustworthy objective and moral knowledge. Unless we transcend this paradox, we run the increasing risks of becoming very good at counting without being able to say what is worth counting and why. The degree to which this is occurring is the degree to which the computer revolution is already over — and the degree to which we human beings have lost.I think that Aristotle was profoundly right in holding that ethics is concerned with how to live and with human happiness, and also profoundly right in holding that this sort of knowledge (practical knowledge) is different from theoretical knowledge. A view of knowledge that acknowledges that the sphere of knowledge is wider than the sphere of science seems to me to be a cultural necessity if we are to arrive at a sane and human view of ourselves or of science. (Hilary Putnam, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, 1981) David A. Bella is Professor of Civil Engineering at the College of Engineering at Oregon State University. He received his B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Military Institute (1961), his M.S. and his Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering from New York University. His primary research interest is in the philosophy and sociology of technology, technological impact assessment, and moral philosophy. His most important publications are Engineering and Erosion of Trust and Organizations and Systemic Distortion of Information, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering (1987), and Strategic Defense: Catastrophic Loss of Control, Journal of Peace Research (1989). Jonathan B. King is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business at Oregon State University. He received his B.A. in philosophy from Antioch College (1965) and his M.B.A. in Finance (1975) and Ph.D. in Business, Government and Society (1980) from the University of Washington. His primary research interests are in the areas of moral philosophy, the philosophy of science, and critical thinking. His most important publications are The Three Face of Thinking, Journal of Higher Education (1986), Prisoner's Paradoxes, Journal of Business Ethics (1988), and Confronting Chaos, Journal of Business Ethics (1989).     

Trust in Scientific Publishing

Trust is an important phenomenon to reduce organisational complexity and uncertainty. In the literature many types of trust are distinguished. An important framework to understand the variety and development of trust in organisations is provided by Zucker. She distinguishes three types of trust: process-based trust institutional-based trust characteristic-based trustIn this article we will add a fourth type: values-based trust.Similarly, it is customary in scientific communication to distinguish four main communication functions: registration archiving certification awareness.These types of trust and the communication functions offer somewhat similar classification schemes. In this paper we will elaborate on these classification schemes with the aim to analyse possible similarities or even mapping. Such similarities will allow drawing conclusions on the development of trust in a (virtual) organisation in general and the process of scientific communication as a special kind of a (virtual) organisation in particular.     

Thinking and Acting Outside the Neo-classical Economic Box: Reply to McMurtry

This paper responds to Professor John McMurtry, primarily to his critique (Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 44, 2003) of my recent book, Economics as Moral Science (Springer-Verlag, 2001). Although agreeing with my attribution of a moral a priorism to orthodox or neo-classical economics, McMurtry takes issue with my conversion thesis, that ana priori, ethically committed theory can be transformed into a testable empirical science of actual behaviour through the application of institutional constraints to individual motivations. McMurtry views such a thesis as logically possible but morally abhorrent. In so doing, he ascribes a version of economic determinism to me which, he claims, leads me to mistakenly understand the neo-classical paradigm as circumscribing the boundaries of reality itself and thereby entrenching the life-destructive values presupposed by this paradigm. I reject such a reading of Economics as Moral Science and explain the manner in which it is inconsistent both with the theoretical substance and practical agenda of my work. I propose that the irreducible basis of disagreement remains one wherein I believe that a more radical reform of the capitalist market order is mandatory to establish more defensible moral ideals than does McMurtry. My reply closes by recommending a constitutional partitioning of material goods such that we may more securely act outside the ethical constraints of neo-classical theoryBernard Hodgson is Professor of Philosophy at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada. He received his B.A. (Philosophy and Economics) from the University of Toronto and his Ph.D. (Philosophy) from the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Hodgson has been a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge and, recently, has been the author of Economics as Moral Science (Springer-Verlag, 2001), and the editor of The Invisible Hand and the Common Good (Springer-Verlag, 2004)