Business Dilemmas and Religious Belief: An Explorative Study among Dutch Executives

This paper explores the relationship between religious belief and the dilemmas Dutch executives confront in daily business practice. We find that the frequency with which dilemmas arise is directly related to various aspects of religious belief, such as the belief in a transcendental being and the intensity of religious practice. Despite this relationship, only 17% of the dilemmas examined involve a religious standard. Most dilemmas originate from a conflict between moral and practical standards. We also find that 79% of the identified dilemmas stem from a conflict between two or more internalized standards of the executive.Johan Graafland is a Professor of Economics, Business and Ethics at Tilburg University and Director of the Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at the Department of Philosophy of Tilburg University. He has published articles in The Journal of Business Ethics, Business Ethics: A European Review, Philosophia Reformatica, Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Applied Economics, Economics Letters, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Empirical Economics, Journal of Policy Modelling, Public Finances/Finances Publique, Economic Modeling, Journal of Public Economics and others. His current research interests are corporate social responsibility and philosophy of economics.Muel Kaptein is a Professor of Business Ethics and Integrity Management at the RSM Erasmus University, where he chairs the Department of Business-Society Management. Muel is also a Director at KPMG Integrity and Investigation Services. He has published articles in a number of journals, including The Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Society Review, Organization Studies, Academy of Management Review and European Management Journal. His most recent books are The Six Principles of Managing with Integrity (Spiro Press) and The Balanced Company (Oxford University Press). His research interests include the management of ethics, the measurement of ethics and the ethics of management. Muel is a Section Editor of the Journal of Business Ethics.Corrie Mazereeuw-van der Duijn Schouten is a senior researcher at the Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility at Tilburg University, the Netherlands. She has several years of experience as business consultant in the field of organizational change and group processes within organizations. Her research interests include leadership, religion and corporate social responsibility. She is currently working on a PhD thesis on religion and leadership.     

The Ethical Cycle

Arriving at a moral judgment is not a straightforward or linear process in which ethical theories are simply applied to cases. Instead it is a process in which the formulation of the moral problem, the formulation of possible “solutions”, and the ethical judging of these solutions go hand in hand. This messy character of moral problems, however, does not rule out a systematic approach. In this article, we describe a systematic approach to problem solving that does justice to the complex nature of moral problems and ethical judgment: the ethical cycle. Our goal is to provide a structured and disciplined method of addressing moral problems, which helps to guide a sound analysis of these problems. We will illustrate the usefulness of this cycle with an example. Further, we will discuss two general issues in applied ethics in relation to the proposed ethical cycle: the role of ethical theories and the place of individual judgment versus collective deliberation. Ibo van de Poel (1966) is Assistant Professor of Ethics and Technology at Delft University of Technology. He has done research on the dynamics of technological development, codes of conduct and professional ethics of engineers, the moral acceptability of technological risks, ethics in engineering design, and ethics and responsibiltiy in R&D networks. He has published in, among others, Science, Technology & Humans Values, Research Policy and Science and Engineering Ethics. For more information, see http://www.tbm.tudelft.nl/webstaf/ibop/. Lambèr Royakkers (1967) is Associate Professor of Ethics and Technology at Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. He studied Philosophy and Social Sciences, Technical Mathematics, and Law. He received his PhD at the Tilburg University in 1996. His dissertation was on the formalisation of normative rules with deontic logic. It has been revised rather thoroughly for the serie Law and Philosophy published by Kluwer Academic in 1998. His research interests include ethics and technology, (collective) responsibility, and logic.     

Ethical theory and practice: Is there a gap?

Archie Bahm argued recently that there is a gap between theoretical and applied ethics, and that those working in applied ethics must assume the burden of bridging it. Evidence of a gap is considerable, but it seems also partly due to much ethical theory having relatively little to offer to those grappling with practical moral problems. Some aspects of utilitarian theory are examined in this connection. Finally it is suggested that other areas of theory developing new models of man may partly bridge the gap and aid those dealing with problems of moral decision-making. John Hoaglund is Professor of Philosophy at Christopher Newport College. He is at present Chairman of Philosophy. He was formerly Lecturer at the Free University of Berlin. He is Fulbright Fellow, University of Bergen, Norway, 1980. He is the author of: The Voluntary One-Parent Family, in A. C. Cafagna et al. (eds.), Philosophy, Children, and the Family, New York, 1982, pp. 43–50 and published several articles on aesthetics in Journal of Aesthetic Education, British Journal of Aesthetics, Zeitschrift für Aesthetik and Allgemeine Kunstkritik, and Studia Estetyczne.     

Organizational Commitment: A Proposal for a Wider Ethical Conceptualization of ‘Normative Commitment’

Conceptualization and measurement of organizational commitment involve different dimensions that include economic, affective, as well as moral aspects labelled in the literature as: ‘continuance’, ‘affective’ and ‘normative’ commitment. This multidimensional framework emerges from the convergence of different research lines. Using Aristotle’s philosophical framework, that explicitly considers the role of the will in human commitment, it is proposed a rational explanation of the existence of mentioned dimensions in organizational commitment. Such a theoretical proposal may offer a more accurate definition of ‘affective commitment’ that distinguishes feelings from rational judgments. The use of a philosophical explanation coherent with psychological findings also allows the discovery of a wider moral concept of ‘normative commitment’. Tomás F. González Cruz is Senior Lecturer in Business Administration at the University of Valencia, Spain. He earned his Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration in Valencia University. Likewise, he has a Doctorate in Business Administration at Valencia University. His principal research interests are: Organizational design and the way in which it is a source of sustainable competitive advantage, ethics, leadership, resource and competence-based theory, total quality management. Manuel Guillén is Senior Lecturer in Management, at the University of Valencia (Spain). Prof. Guillén earned his PhD in Management with a specialization in ethics and strategic management integration. He has been Visiting Scholar at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota (USA); at the Notre Dame University, Indiana, USA; and guest Visiting Student at IESE Business School doctoral program, in Barcelona. He has presented some of his research at the top conferences in the field (International Strategic Management Society Conference, Annual Conference of the European Business Ethics Network, EBEN) and has published in business ethics and management journals. Since 1997 teaches Business Ethics Seminaries in different Business Schools, institutions and companies.     

The Principle of Moral Projection: A reply to Professor Ranken

This article responds to two criticisms by Professor Nani Ranken of the Principle of Moral Projection in business ethics. In the process it enlarges upon our understanding of the moral agenda of management and the corporation as a participant in ethical transactions. Kenneth E. Goodpaster is Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Business Administration at Harvard University. He has published articles in a wide variety of journals, including the Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Environmental Ethics, the Journal of Business Ethics, Thought, and the Harvard Business Review. He has also edited or authored five books: Perspectives on Morality: Essays of William Frankena (1976) Ethics and Problems of the 21st Century (1979) Regulation, Values and the Public Interest (1980) Ethics in Management (1984) and Policies and Persons: A Casebook in Business Ethics (1985). Work in progress includes a monograph on management and moral philosophy (1987).     

Ethics in business education: Working toward a meaningful reciprocity

This paper outlines and argues against some criticisms of business ethics education. It maintains that these criticisms have been put forward due to a misunderstanding of the nature of business and/or ethics. Business ethics seeks a meaningful reciprocity among economic, social and moral concerns. This demands that business organizations autonomously develop ethical goals from within, which in turn demands a reciprocity between ethical theory and practical experience. Working toward such a reciprocity, the ultimate goal of business ethics education is a moral business point of view through which one can live with integrity and fulfillment.To everyone who proposes to have a good career, moral philosophy is indispensible. Cicero, De Officiis, 44BC W. Michael Hoffman is Chair and Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Director at the Center for Business Ethics, Bentley College, Waltham, MA. He has received the following Grants: Council for Philosophical Studies, NEH Fellow, NDEA Fellow, Matchette. His most important publications are: Kant's Theory of Freedom: A Metaphysical Inquiry (UPA, 1979); Proceedings of the National Conferences on Business Ethics, 5 volumes (1977–1984); Business Ethics (McGraw-Hill, 1984) and articles in Journal of Business Ethics, Idealistic Studies, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of Thought, The Journal for Critical Analysis, and The Southern Journal of Philosophy.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 Interface.     

Meeting needs and business obligations: An argument for the libertarian skeptic

In this paper I argue that if we are to have any defensible property rights at all, we must recognize a fundamental commitment to helping those in need. The argument has significant implications for all who claim defensible property rights. In this paper I concentrate on some of the implications this argument has for redefining business obligations. In particular, I show why those who typically would be quite resistant to the idea that businesses have any obligations to assist others in need must acknowledge this fundamental obligation. I also suggest how this argument contributes to our understanding of the normative basis of Stakeholder Theory. Gillian Brock is a Lecturer at the University of Auckland, New Zealand where she teaches courses in Business Ethics (amongst other courses). She completed her Ph.D. in Philosophy. Her dissertation, On the Moral Importance of Needs, explores the role human needs can play in moral and political theory. Some of her other articles have appeared (or are forthcoming) in journals such as Ethics, Analysis and Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review.     

Fair markets

The paper challenges a minimalist strategy in business ethics that maintains if it's legal, it's moral. In hard cases, judges decide legal issues by appealing to moral ideals. Investigation shows that the bedrock concept is fairness. Often judges define fairness in terms of non-coerciveness or equality of bargaining power. The prudent manager must look beyond the legal department to the ethical notion of fairness. Moreover, if the courts were to consistently appeal to non-coerciveness and equality of bargaining power, some practices now considered morally acceptable would be neither moral nor legal. Norman E. Bowie is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for the Study of Values at the University of Delaware. He is the author of numerous articles on business ethics and social and political philosophy and of Business Ethics, Making Ethical Decisions (ed.), The Tradition of Philosophy (co-ed.), and Ethical Theory and Business (co-ed.).     

A defense of employee rights

Recent trends in business ethics along with growing attacks upon unions, suggest that employee rights will be a major social concern for business managers during the next decade. However, in most of the discussions of employee rights to date, the very meaning and legitimacy of such rights are often uncritically taken for granted. In this paper, we develop an account of employee rights and defend this conception against what we take to be the strongest in-principle objections to it. Joseph R. Des Jardins is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy of Villanova University. He is co-editor, with John McCall, ofContemporary Issues in Business Ethics (1984) and An Introduction to Ethics (forthcoming, both published by Wadsworth. John J. McCall is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy of St. Joseph's University and formerly at Iowa State University.     

Allhoff on Business Bluffing

The moral status of business bluffing is a controversial issue. On the one hand, bluffing would seem to be relevantly similar to lying and deception. Because of this, business bluffing can be taken to be an activity that is at least prima facie morally condemnable. On the other hand, it has often been claimed that in business bluffing is part of the game and that therefore there is nothing morally questionable in business bluffing. In a recent issue of this journal, Fritz Allhoff puts forward a novel defence of business bluffing. In this article, I will examine Allhoff’s arguments for the moral acceptability of business bluffing and argue that they are implausible. Dr. Jukka Varelius is a Visiting Fellow in the Centre for Professional Ethics at the University of Central Lancashire, UK. His research concentrates on questions of biomedical ethics, psychiatric ethics, and business ethics. His publications include ‘Voluntary euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and the goals of medicine’ Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2006, 31 (2): 1--18, ‘Execution by lethal injection, euthanasia, organ-donation and the proper goals of medicine’ Bioethics, forthcoming, and ‘Autonomy, well-being and the case of the refusing patient’ Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, forthcoming.     

Attitudes towards business ethics of business students in Malaysia

The main objective of this paper is to assess the attitude of a group of Malaysian business students towards business ethics. The survey results indicate that the respondents in general are of the opinion that the businesses in Malaysia consider ethics as secondary. A greater emphasis on ethical values in the business curricular has been strongly supported by the respondents. Moreover, the majority of the respondents believe that moral/ethical education and top management attitudes are the most important factors influencing ethical standards in business practices.Dr Kazi Firoz Alam is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Accountancy, Massey University, New Zealand. He has been teaching Accounting to MBA students since 1984 and has supervised Masterate students in different areas of accounting, including accounting and tax ethics. He has written three books on Accounting and Taxation and has published articles on Corporate Taxation and Company Financial Policy, The Influence of Tax Incentives on Investment Decisions, Taxation and Company Dividend Policy and Business Ethics. Some of the journals where his publications have appeared includeMetu Studies in Development, Managerial and Decision Economics, Accounting Forum, Investment Analysts Journal andJournal of Business Ethics.     

Schefflerian ethics and corporate social responsibility

This paper examines some of the essential features of Samuel Scheffler's hybrid theory of ethics. Scheffler posits and defends a moral theory which is intended to be neither act-consequentialist nor fully agent-centered. Instead, it provides an agent-centered analysis of moral thinking: one that, unlike consequentialist theories, respects the personal integrity of the moral agent. In this paper I shall do the following: (1) Sketch some of the general points of Scheffler's proposal; (2) Apply Scheffler's ethical theory to the matter of corporate social responsibility; and (3) Raise some objections to this Schefflerian corporate social responsibility theory, along with some modifications of this hybrid theory of corporate social responsibility which are intended to evade such criticisms.The significance of this paper is that it shows that Scheffler's quite innovative ethical theory is problematic as a foundation for a theory of corporate social responsibility. J. Angelo Corlett is a research fellow in philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has published philosophy papers in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Public Affairs Quarterly, and the American Psychologist among other journals. His areas of interest include Social/Political Philosophy, Ethics and Value Theory. He is currently working on a book entitled Liberty and Equality: Analyzing Nozick and Rawls.     

The status of business ethics: Past and future

Business ethics, which grew out of religion's interest in ethics in business and management education's concern with social issues, has become an interdisciplinary academic field. Thus far it has centered on teaching undergraduates. The easy work has now been done and the field has reached a plateau. To develop further it requires development on the MBA level, high quality research on new questions, positive models, better interdisciplinary integration, and attention to international business. Ultimately the field will stand or fall on the quality of research those in it produce. Richard T. De George, University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas is the author or editor of fifteen books, including Ethics, Free Enterprise and Public Policy; Business Ethics, 2nd ed.; and The Nature and Limits of Authority.     

GM and corporate responsibility

Only by distinguishing corporate, moral, social and legal responsibility can GM know how to weigh and respond to its various responsibilities. Corporate responsibility stems from the ends for which the corporation is formed. In addition the corporation is responsible for meeting the moral demands that come from the moral law. The corporation is responsible for meeting legitimate social demands proposed by society. If society uses the law to express its demands, the demands yield legal responsibilities. Those demands that are social but neither moral nor legal may not be legitimate demands that GM must respond to at all. Richard T. De George, University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kansas, former President of the Metaphysical Society of America, and Vice President of the International Federation of Philosophical Societies, is the author of Business Ethics and contributing co-editor of Ethics, Free Enterprise and Public Policy.     

Ethical Theory and Business Practices: The Case of Discourse Ethics

By focusing on the reasoned debate in the discourse-ethical approach to business ethics, this paper discusses the possibilities and limitations of moral reasoning as well as applied economic and business ethics. Business ethics, it is contended, can be looked at from the standpoint of two criteria: justification and application. These criteria are used to compare three approaches: the Integrative Business Ethics, developed by Swiss philosopher Peter Ulrich, the Cultural Business Ethics of the Nuremberg School in German business ethics, and the concept of “Good Conservation” by Frederick Bird. It is argued that discourse-ethical approaches can be called upon for justifying moral principles. Improving the chances of their application, however, necessitates a good understanding of lifeworlds and culturally developed institutional settings. Bearing this in mind, further research perspectives stressing a linkage between discourse-ethical and critical approaches in social sciences are suggested.Dr. Thomas Beschorner is head of the research group “Social Learning and Sustainability” at University of Oldenburg, Germany and currently Visiting-Professor at McGill University, Montreal, Canada     

An Investigation of Ethics Officer Independence

In this paper, we examine whether ethics officers are able to perform their assigned duties independently of organizational management. Specifically, we investigate whether inherent conflicts of interest with company management potentially hinder the ability of ethics officers to serve as an effective monitor and deterrent of unethical activity throughout the organization. As part of our analysis, we conducted 10 detailed phone interviews with current and retired ethics officers in order to determine whether practicing ethics officers feel the need for additional independence protection from management. We propose that the current system in which ethics officers report to management must be changed in order for ethics officers to effectively perform their jobs. Specifically, we maintain that ethics officers should (1) be hired by, (2) be fired by, and (3) report directly to the corporate board of directors rather than company management. Such a change in the reporting environment would greatly enhance the independence of ethics officers. W. Michael Hoffman, Ph.D., is the founding Executive Director of the Center for Business Ethics at Bentley College. He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst, has authored or edited 16 books, and has published over 70 articles. In addition, Dr. Hoffman was the first Executive Director of the Ethics Officer Association and currently is the advisor to its board of directors. John D. Neill, Ph.D., CPA, is a professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has previously published articles in numerous journals including the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Accounting Literature, Accounting Horizons, Journal of Applied Business Research, the Financial Analysts Journal, and the Journal of Accounting, Ethics, and Public Policy. O. Scott Stovall, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of accounting at Abilene Christian University and has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Business Research, Management Accounting Quarterly, and The Journal of Accounting Case Research.     

Comments On Hsieh,Moriarty and Oosterhout

A response to the discussants, Nien-hê Hsieh, Jeffrey Moriarty and J. (Hans) van Oosterhout, who took part in the March, 2005 symposium “The Political Theory of Organizations: A Retrospective Examination of Christopher McMahon’s Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management” held in San Francisco as part of the Society for Business Ethics Group Meeting at the Pacific Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association. Christopher McMahon is Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In addition to Authority and Democracy: A General Theory of Government and Management (Princeton, 1994), Professor McMahon wrote Collective Rationality and Collective Reasoning (Cambridge, 2001) and has published widely in the area of moral and political philosophy. His work has appeared in Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs and the Journal of Philosophy, among other journals. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh.     

Sartrean Existentialism and Ethical Decision-Making in Business

A wide range of decision-making models have been offered to assist in making ethical decisions in the workplace. Those that are based on normative moral frameworks typically include elements of traditional moral philosophy such as consequentialist and/or deontological␣ethics. This paper suggests an alternative model drawing on Jean-Paul Sartre’s existentialism. Accordingly, the model focuses on making decisions in full awareness of one’s freedom and responsibility. The steps of the model are intended to encourage reflection of one’s projects and one’s situation and the possibility of refusing the expectations of others. A case study involving affirmative action in South Africa is used to demonstrate the workings of the model and a number of strengths and weaknesses are identified. Despite several weaknesses that can be raised regarding existential ethics, the model’s success lies in the way that it reframes ethical dilemmas in terms of individual freedom and responsibility, and in its acceptance and analysis of subjective experiences and personal situations. Andrew West is a Lecturer in the School of Business and Economics at the South African Campus of Monash University, and a doctoral candidate at the University of Pretoria.     

Bribery,consent and prima facie duty: A rejoinder to Carson

Responding to my paper Bribery Tom Carson argues that bribe takers violate promisory obligations in a wider range of cases than I acknowledge and insists that bribe taking is prima facie wrong in all contexts. I argue that he is wrong on both counts. Michael Philips is a Professor of Philosophy at Portland State University. Recent papers by him have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Ethics, Philosophical Studies, Nous, Law and Philosophy, The Journal of Business Ethics, and several other journals. He is currently at work an a book in moral theory.     

Internationalizing the business ethics curriculum: A survey

This article reports on a telephone survey of business school faculty in the United Kingdom, Asia and North America concerning efforts to internationalize the teaching of business ethics. International dimensions of business ethics are currently given only limited coverage in the business school curriculum with over half of the faculty surveyed indicating that less then 10% of their ethics teaching focuses on global issues. Teaching objectives vary widely with some faculty emphasizing a relativistic, diversity oriented perspective while others stress the universality of values. The respondents identified a great need to develop teaching materials based upon non-U.S. corporations and/or non-U.S. incidents.Christopher J. Cowton is University Lecturer in Management Studies at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Templeton College. An author on many facets of management, his previous paper in theJournal of Business Ethics was on corporate philanthropy in the United Kingdom. Current research interests include the implications of just-in-time production for accounting, and ethical (or socially responsible) investment.Thomas W. Dunfee is the Kolodny Professor of Social Responsibility at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He was President of the American Business Law Association 1989–1990, served as Editor-in-Chief of theAmerican Business Law Journal 1975–1977 and is a member of the Executive Committee of the Society for Business Ethics. He has published articles in theAcademy of Management Review, Business Ethics Quarterly, theBusiness and Professional Ethics Journal, and theJournal of Social Philosophy in addition to a variety of business and legal journals.