Business regulation,business ethics and the professional employee

The differences in business reactions to legal regulation, and the nature of business moralities, are examined through the eyes of an expert group — in-house lawyers. The research indicates that lawyers inevitably provide a degree of control through their technical expertise, but that they also identify strongly with their companies and emphasise shared ethics rather than ethical differences between lawyers and their employers. This can partly be explained by their integration with the company but also rests on the problematic nature of law and regulatory controls in relation to organisations within the community. In-house lawyers therefore reject a policing role in favour of a counselling role. Since they perceive themselves as part of a shared culture of ethics, they also avoid a leadership role. However, the article suggests that the nature of legal judgment should assist lawyers towards such a role, while recognising that organisational statesmanship must be constrained by organisational culture and the wider community culture of ethical standards. Dr Karl J. Mackie is Director of the Centre for Legal Studies in the University of Nottingham, where he lectures in employment law and in management skills development. Lawyers in Business: and the Law Business is published by Macmillan (London) 1989. Dr Mackie is a member of the Business Strategy Network and a consultant in business strategy.This paper has been adapted from Mackie, Lawyers in Business: and the Law Business (1989), (London: Macmillan), ch. 10.     

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.     

Reactions to ethical dilemmas: A study pertaining to certified public accountants

This study discusses how perceptions of ethics are formed by certified public accountants (CPAs). Theologians are used as a point of comparison. When considering CPA ethical dilemmas, both subject groups in this research project viewed confidentiality and independence as more important than recipient of responsibility and seriousness of breach. Neither group, however, was insensitive to any of the factors presented for its consideration. CPA reactions to ethical dilemmas were governed primarily by provisions of the CPA ethics code; conformity to that code may well be evidence of higher stage moral reasoning.Gregory A. Claypool is Associate Professor of Accounting and Finance at Youngstown State University.David F. Fetyko is Professor of Accounting at Kent State University. Michael A. Pearson is Professor of Accounting at Kent State University. He is the author of Enhancing Perceptions of Auditor Independence, Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1985), 53–6, and Auditor Independence Deficiencies and Alleged Audit Failures, Journal of Business Ethics 6 (1987), 281–7.     

A reply to Thomas Mulligan's “critique of Milton Friedman's essay ‘The Social Responsibility of Business to Increase Its Profits’”

Professor Thomas Mulligan undertakes to discredit Milton Friedman's thesis that The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. He attempts to do this by moving from Friedman's paradigm characterizing a socially responsible executive as willful and disloyal to a different paradigm, i.e., one emphasizing the consultative and consensus-building role of a socially responsible executive. Mulligan's critique misses the point, first, because even consensus-building executives act contrary to the will of minority shareholders, but even more importantly, because he assumes that the mandate of a shareholder majority brings legitimacy to efforts of corporate managers to utilize corporate wealth in solving social problems. It is the role of our democratic institutions to deal with national agenda issues such as inflation, unemployment, and pollution, not that of the private sector. Corporations and private individuals do have a role to play in enhancing the quality of the human environment, however, and the author suggests a coherent means of developing that role in an effort rescue corporate social responsibility from Mulligan no less than from Friedman. Bill Shaw, Lynette S. Autrey Visiting Professor of Business Ethics at the Jesse H. School of Administration, Rice University, is Professor of Business Law at the University of Texas at Austin. He is staff editor of the American Business Law Journal and the Midwest Law Review. Among his most recent publications are The Structure of the Legal Environment (with Art Wolfe), Environmental Law: Text and Cases, The Global Environment: A Proposal to Eliminate Marine Oil Pollution (With Frank Cross and Brenda Winslett, The Natural Resources Journal), and Comparable Worth and Its Prospects (The Labor Law Journal).     

Women,unions, and social policy

We contend in this paper that the trade union role in social policy is expanding due to the debate on women's issues. The Centrale de l'enseignement du Québec is seen as a forerunner of this trend, with its policy positions on questions previously seen as personal. The method of promotion of these interests is also new, with caucusing and networking. The significance of these changes goes beyond unionized women workers and affects all women. Dr. Margaret Beattie is Professor adjoint at the Département de Service Social, Université de Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada. Her most important publication is: Women and Factional Politics in a Teacher's Union, Atlantis: A Women's Studies Journal (Fall 1982).     

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.     

Professionalism: Foundation for business ethics

Professionalism includes the essential contents of other key notions within the field of business ethics. As a term involving the notion of vocation it may be understood as containing a religious content, since vocation refers to a man's most intimate personal decisions, destiny and providence. Professionalism also connotes respect for law and so includes a reference to commercial law as a guide to right conduct. Professionalsim thus lifts the requirements of law to the level of personal commitment.Like an honest act, professionalism may not be easy to define, but you will know it when you see it. As for professionalism's practitioners, like the practitioners of honesty, their art is learned not by seeking definitions of what they do, but by practicing professionalism. Only if this practice becomes an obsession with the Business Aristocracy can we expect professionalism to seize the soul of lesser businessmen and suffuse the entire business community. Thomas E. Schaefer, Ph. D., is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Texas, Permian Basin. He was formerly Head of the Department of Business Administration, University of Alaska, and Dean of Business Administration, Sacred Heart University, Puerto Rico. He has received a Private Sector Award of Pres. Reagan for Extraordinary Contributions to Small Business. His most important publications are: The Process of Management: What Supervisors Do (O.C. Press, 1982); Leadership Through Followership, Business Horizons (September/October, 1982) and many others.Paper presented at the 16th Conference on Value Inquiry, entitled: Ethics and the Market Place: An Exercise in Bridge-Building or On the Slopes of the Inteface.     

‘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).     

Learning to solve the right problems: The case of nuclear power in America

Three general types of problems entail different strategies. Continuing to seek solutions to tame problems when we face messes, let alone wicked problems, is potentially catastrophic hence fundamentally irresponsible. In our turbulent times, it is therefore becoming a strategic necessity to learn how to solve the right problems.

But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely, or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems. Rittel and Webber (1973).

Jonathan King is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business at Oregon State University. His primary research interests are in the areas of moral philosophy and modern technology. His most important publications are Confronting Chaos and Common Knowledge of the Second Kind,Journal of Business Ethics (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).     

What is business in America?

This paper, presented at the Conference on Value Issues in Business at Millsaps College, is divided into three parts. The first sketches the logic of the evolution of U.S. business and suggests reasons for its remarkable success. The second assesses the power of U.S. business in modern society, both from an economic and political perspective. The third attempts to formulate the underlying philosophy of U.S. business using ideals such as the work ethic, entrepreneurism, democracy, and equality. Some of these ideals, the paper suggests, are irreconcilable. Thomas J. Donaldson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of Chicago. His publications in the area of business ethics include numerous articles and two books, Ethical Issues in Business co-edited with Patricia Werhane, and Corporations and Morality.     

Confronting chaos

While it is common to observe that our society and world are becoming increasingly complex and fast paced, most of our theories provide no bases upon which to develop appropriate strategies. The need for developing holistic strategies is becoming urgent in two related areas: major interactive technologies and morality. Jonathan 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 and General Systems Theory. His most important publications are The Three Faces of Thinking, Journal of Higher Education (1986) and Prisoner's Paradoxes, Journal of Business Ethics (1988).     

Marketing ethics and the techniques of neutralization

The need for conceptual work in marketing ethics is addressed by examining the five techniques of neutralization as a means for partially explaining unethical behaviors by marketing practitioners. These techniques are often used by individuals to lessen the possible impact of norm-violating behaviors upon their self-concept and their social relationships. Borrowed from the social disorganization and deviance literature, the five techniques of neutralization are: (1) denial of responsibility, (2) denial of injury, (3) denial of victim, (4) condemning the condemners and (5) appeal to higher loyalties. Examples of marketing professionals using each of the five techniques are given, and a conceptual model linking the techniques of neutralization with unethical behavior is presented. Finally, relevant research questions are offered for consideration.Scott J. Vitell is Assistant Professor of Marketing at The University of Mississippi. His most important publications include A General Theory of Marketing Ethics (1986) (with Shelby D. Hunt) and Marketing's Contribution to Economic Development: A Look at the Last 30 Years (1985) (with Van R. Wood). Stephen J. Grove is Assistant Professor of Marketing at Clemson University. His articles have appeared in the Journal of Health Care Marketing, the International Journal of Sport Psychology, the Journal of Sport Behavior, the Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, Simulation and Games, and several national and regional conference proceedings.     

Employee testing: An ethical perspective

This paper deals with the conflict between the desire of an employer to test employees for honesty and chemical dependency, and the right of the employee to privacy. Not only is the physical privacy of the employee infringed upon, but the psychic privacy of the individual as well. It is the conclusion of the paper that such an invasion of privacy is not justified without serious and compelling reason, and not the mere chance that testing will reveal problems among some percentage of the tested persons. Dan Davidson is Professor of Business Law at Radford University in Virginia. He has five teaching awards, including Razorback Outstanding Business Faculty Award, University of Arkansas. He is the author of four textbooks published by Kent Publishing Co., and his articles have been published in the Education Forum, Journal of Insurance Issues and Practices, and the Business Law Review, among others.     

Personal values and business decisions: An exploratory investigation

Interest in subjective values and decision responses are investigated empirically, including statistically testing the predictive relationships between subjective values, other independent variables such as level and area of executive responsibility, and decision responses. John H. Barnett is Associate Professor at the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, University of New Hampshire, U.S.A. He was previously a Management Consultant (Cresap, McCormick & Paget) and a Volunteer Executive (Brazil, Mexico, Panama, Papua New guinea, Philippines). He is a Certified Public Accountant and a Doctor of Divinity. His most important publications are: A Business Model of Enlightenment, Journal of Business Ethics 4 (1985), Controversy and Change in Cultural concepts, (Sierra Madre Seminary), and Down the Rose Path: A Businessman's Search for Enlightenment, in press. Marvin J. Karson is Professor of Business Statistics and James R. Carter Professor of Management at the University of New Hampshire. He was formerly Professor of Statistics at the University of Alabama. His work has been published in a number of professional journals. One of his most recent publications is: Karson, M. J. and Cheng, D. C., Estimation of Multi-Period Expected Rates of Return When Investment Relatives are Lognormally Distributed, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 3, No. 2 (1985), 140–148. He is also the author of Multivariate Statistical Methods (Iowa State University Press, 1982).     

Ethical encounters of the second kind

When our society holds widely shared norms and values, we can agree on what constitutes unethical business practices. To the extent our social consensus is unraveling, agreement becomes increasingly problematic. Unfortunately, mainstream Western moral philosophy offers no guidance in this situation. We must therefore begin to focus on the types of social relationships that must exist for there to be agreement on what is right, good and just. This line of argument is, at best, merely suggested in discussions and articles on business ethics. Jonathan B. King is Associate Professor of Managment at the College of Business at Oregon State University. He received his B.A. in philosophy from Antioch College (1965); subsequently served for eight years as an officer in the United States Navy; received his M.B.A. (1975) and Ph.D. (1980) in Business, Government and Society from the University of Washington. His primary research interests are in the areas of epistemology and moral philosophy — e.g., the contribution of the liberal arts to interpretive thought, the sociology of moral knowledge, and the organizational distortion of information. His most important publications are: Teaching Business Ethics, Exchange1984 and A Case for the Humanities Perspective, Organizational Behavior Teaching Journal1984     

The OECD Guidelines for multinational enterprises

In July 1976 the OECD adopted voluntary guidelines for multinational enterprises. These guidelines deal, among other things, with transfer pricing and other transactions between companies which belong to the same multinational enterprise. The purpose of the present article is to analyze the OECD Guidelines from the point of view of business ethics. It is shown that inherent in the guidelines is a conflict between different goals. In the latter part of the article it is shown how this conflict could be solved. Claes Hägg is Associate Professor at the Dept. of Business Administration, University of Stockholm, Sweden, where he was previously Research Associate. His most important publications are Just Price and Equal Opportunity (to appear in this journal), On Profit Measurement and Value Estimates, Management International Review 19 (1979), 103–107, Discounting and Bayesian Spectral Analysis. Economics Letters 1 (1978), 129–132, and Possibility and Cost in Decision Analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1 (1978), 81–86.     

Limitations of ethical reasoning as an action (praxis) strategy

For both philosophers and managers, reasoning with ourselves and others can be used both as (1) a way of knowing what is ethical and (2) a way of acting to help ourselves, others and organizations behave ethically. However, for many of us, knowing is frequently not the same as acting. Four areas are addressed: (1) thirteen limitations of ethical reasoning as an action strategy; (2) how a better understanding of these limitations can strengthen ethical reasoning as an action strategy; (3) how an understanding of these limitations can serve as a conceptual foundation for exploring other ethical action strategies; and, (4) implications for experiential learning and teaching. Richard P. Nielsen is a Management Professor in the Department of Organizational Studies, School of Management, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA 02167. Related articles of his include Toward an Action Philosophy for Managers Based on Arendt and Tillich, Journal of Business Ethics, May 1984, What Can Managers Do about Unethical Management, Journal of Business Ethics, May 1987, and Cooperative Strategy, Strategic Management Journal 9, 1988.     

Norman Bowie and Richard Rorty on multinationals: Does business ethics need ‘metaphysical comfort?’

Norman Bowie wrote an article on the moral obligations of multinational corporations in 1987. This paper is a response to Bowie, but more importantly, it is designed to articulate the force and substance of the pragmatist philosophy developed by Richard Rorty. In his article, Bowie suggested that moral universalism (which he endorses) is the only credible method of doing business ethics across cultures and that cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are not. Bowie, in a manner surprisingly common among contemporary philosophers, lumps Rorty into a bad guy category without careful analysis of his philosophy and ascribes to him views which clearly do not fit. I attempt to provide both a more careful articulation of Rorty's views, and to use his pragmatism to illustrate an approach to business ethics which is more fruitful than Bowie's. This brand of philosophy follows the Enlightenment spirit of toleration and attempts to set aside questions of Truth, whether religious or philosophical, and have ethics centered around what James called that which is good in the way of belief. Rather than looking for metaphysical foundations or some type of external justification, ethicists perform their craft from within the cultural traditions, narratives and practices of their society.Andrew C. Wicks, M.A. in Religious Ethics. Currently a fourth year Doctoral Candidate in the Religious Studies Department at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.     

Creating common ground: A lesson from the past

Orthodox business ethics, conventional management theory, and a great deal of higher education embody the overriding emphasis accorded to analysis by yesteryear's science. An alternative strategy, exemplified by the war stories told by a Confederate Genral, is more consistent with late 20th century science in general and soft systems methodology in particular.The characteristic way of management that we have taught... is to take a complex system, divide it into parts, and then try to manage each part as well as possible. And if that's done, the system as a whole will behave well, and that's absolutely false because it's possible to improve the performance of each part taken separately and destroy the system at the same time.Russell AckoffDavid R. Acklin is a Fellow at the Center for Dispute Resolution at Willamette University. His primary research interests are in alternative dispute resolution and organization behavior.Jonathan King is Associate Professor of Management at the College of Business at Oregon State University. His primary research interests are in moral philosophy and systems theories. His most important publications are Common Knowledge of the Second Kind and Learning to Solve the Right Problems,Journal of Business Ethics (1989, 1993).