Business managers and moral sanctuaries

Moral Sanctuary is used in this paper as a metaphor for any theory which makes actions immune from moral criticism. Three arguments favoring moral sanctuaries for business activities are countered. Two of the arguments rest on faulty analogies. One compares business activities to games, another to the behavior of machines. The third rests on the claim that business is a unique activity. This position is rejected by a reductio ad absurdum argument; it entails the immunity of all professional activities from moral judgment. I argue that business managers are accountable to the combined requirements of professionalism and democratic citizenship, notions which are briefly described at the conclusion of the paper.     

Pricing Strategies and Service Differentiation

This paper analyzes a communication network, used by customers with heterogeneous service requirements. We investigate priority queueing as a way to establish service differentiation. It is assumed that there is an infinite population of customers, who join the network as long as their utility (which is a function of the queueing delay) is larger than the price of the service. We focus on the specific situation with two types of users: one type is delay-sensitive (voice), whereas the other is delay-tolerant (data); these preferences are reflected in their utility curves. Two models are considered: in the first the network determines the priority class of the users, whereas the second model leaves this choice to the users. For both models we determine the prices that maximize the provider's profit. Importantly, these situations do not coincide. Our analysis uses elements from queueing theory, but also from microeconomics and game theory (e.g., the concept of a Nash equilibrium).     

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).     

Thoughts on ‘management-think’

In this paper I briefly summarize Pastin's views on the problem of good business thinking (GBT) and the solution (Perspectival Analysis) which he offers. In discussing Pastin's solution I offer a number criticisms which call for further elucidation on Pastin's part. Specifically, I challenge his vagueness on which perspectives a manager must consider, the manner in which the moral components of these perspectives are to be evaluated, and whether Pastin is not in the end committed simply to an economic account of GBT. Finally, I contend that Pastin's account of GBT errors in being too intellectualistic and too individualistic. George G. Brenkert is Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee. His most important publications are Privacy, Polygraphs, and Work in Business and Professional Ethics Journal 1, No. 1 1981; Strict Products Liability and Compensatory Justice, in Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, edited by W. Michael Hoffman and Jennifer Mills Moore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984); and Marx's Ethics of Freedom (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983).     

Corporate responsibility and corporate personhood

In this paper, I consider the claim that a corporation cannot be held to be morally responsible unless it is a person. First, I argue that this claim is ambigious. Person flags three different but related notions: metaphysical person, moral agent, moral person. I argue that, though one can make the claim that corporates are metaphysical persons, this claim is only marginally relevant to the question of corporate moral responsibility. The central question which must be answered in discussions of corporate moral responsibility is whether corporations are moral agents or moral persons. I argue that, though we can make a case for saying corporations are moral agents, they are not moral persons, and hence, we can hold them responsible. In addition, we need not treat them the way we would be obligated to treat a moral person; we needn't have the same scruples about holding a corporation morally responsible as we would a moral person. Rita C. Manning is Lecturer at California State College, San Bernardino. She has published in Southern Journal of Philosophy and in Informal Logic.     

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.     

Mill's ‘proof’ of Utility and the composition of causes

John Stuart Mill proposed that all policy precepts, be they in the areas of morality or prudence or aesthetics, are all subordinate to the precepts of the Art of Life. The value which he assumes in defining the Art of Life is the Principle of Utility. This principle, being normative rather than fact, can admit of no proof based solely on deductive inference. Yet Mill proposed considerations that he believed capable of rationally persuading one to accept his principle as the basic principle for the Art of Life. This paper aims to evaluate this argument. In particular, it tries to show that a crucial step, often thought to be a logical howler, is not to be so simply dismissed. It is shown that if one accepts certain theses from Mill's philosophy of science and of social science, concerning the composition of causes, then the crucial step is fully justified. It is also suggested that these theses of Mill's philosophy of science are mistaken. So Mill's proof of utility is, after all, unsound, but the reconstruction proposed shows it to be much more plausible and much more philosophically interesting than is often thought.     

Justifying moral initiative by business,with rejoinders to Bill Shaw and Richard Nunan

In this paper I respond to separate criticisms by Bill Shaw (JBE, July 1988) and Richard Nunan (JBE, December 1988) of my paper A Critique of Milton Friedman's Essay The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits (JBE, August 1986). Professors Shaw and Nunan identify several points where my argument could benefit from clarification and improvement. They also make valuable contributions to the discussion of the broad issue area of whether and to what extent business should exercise moral initiative.My objectives are (1) to show, with the aid of examples (inspired by Shaw) and the addition of one point of correction (inspired by Nunan), that my disapproving critique of Friedman's famous argument remains sound, (2) to show that Professor Shaw's argument contains serious problems, and (3) to build on the base laid by my critics by developing important reasons why business should exercise moral initiative.Thomas Mulligan is Assistant Professor of Management at Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada. He has a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Northwestern University and has worked as a manager and consultant in the manufacturing and software industries. His research interests are business ethics and the advancement of the humanities in business education.     

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.     

Insider trading revisited

A recent article in this Journal argued that insider trading is an unethical practice leading to an inefficiently functioning market. The debate on this topic has primarily pitted ethical defenses of prohibition against economic arguments extolling its allowance. In addition to being incomplete, this approach ignores other unwanted economic effects of prohibition itself and unethical implications of its existence. This article shows that Adam Smith's free market concept, when properly interpreted, provides all the incentive structure necessary for an efficient and ethical marketplace even when insider trading is permitted. Deryl W. Martin has presented his research at several regional and national conferences, and has published in the Journal of Economics and Business, the Journal of Strategic and Financial Decisions, The Moneypaper, and several proceedings and newspapers. He is currently Assistant Professor of Finance at Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, TN.Jeffrey H. Peterson is a doctoral candidate in finance at the University of Alabama. He also has presented his research at several regional and national meetings, and is currently Instructor of Finance at St. Bonaventure University in Olean, NY.     

Is there any ethics in business ethics

It is argued, against Richard T. De George, that while clarification of concepts, implications, and presuppositions in business ethics largely relies on a neutral territory of reason, determination of what moral intuitions are correct depends on non-neutral ethical theories. The latter posit ethics in business to varying degrees. Thus while the Kantian and utilitarian ethical theories are, for De George, proper (philosophical) approaches to business ethics, they are as reliant on affirming and encouraging moral sentiments outside parameters of pure reason as theological approaches. And hence if theological approaches can make no unique contribution by virtue of relying on more than reason or experience alone, then philosophical approaches can make no distinctive contribution either. Either both are viable or neither are. Oscillation between the mutually dependent notions of business ethics and ethics in business obfuscates what the field of business ethics is and renders De George's position inadequate.Robert Trundle, Jr., received his Ph.D. at the University of Colorado, and is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northern Kentucky University where he teaches Business Ethics. He has worked at such companies as Stearns-Roger and Rogerson-Hiller Corporation where he was a member of the Hazardous Materials Safety Committee.     

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.     

Towards an Integrative Model of Small Firm Internationalisation

Firm internationalisation has long been regarded as an incremental process, wherein firms gravitate towards psychologically close markets and increase commitment to international markets in a gradual, step-wise, manner through a series of evolutionary stages. However, much of the recent literature provides clear evidence of rapid and dedicated internationalisation by born global firms. Typically, these are smaller entrepreneurial firms that internationalise from inception, or start to shortly thereafter. Their main source of competitive advantage is often related to a more sophisticated knowledge base. In addition, the authors have found evidence of firms supporting this born global pattern of behaviour but also evidence of firms that suddenly internationalise after a long period of focusing on the domestic market. These born-again globals appear to be influenced by critical events that provide them with additional human or financial resources, such as changes in ownership/management, being taken over by another company with international networks, or themselves acquiring such a firm. Based upon the extant literature and our own research, we propose an integrative model that recognises the existence of different internationalisation pathways. We then explore differences in behaviour due to the firm's internationalisation trajectory and discuss the strategic and public policy implications.     

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.     

A quick justification for business ethics

The article examines the question of whether business ethics courses ought to have an impact. Despite the still common attitude among students and some business professionals that ethical considerations are less pressing in business, I argue that moral obligations are just as important there as elsewhere. The emphasis on profits in business is related to other realms (e.g., hobbies and seeking and education) in which, though private goals are dominant, moral limits remain in force. Business ethics courses can play a crucial role in emphasizing the necessity of ethical analysis in business. Louis G. Lombardi is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the Lake Forest College and the author of Inherent Worth, Respect, and Rights in Environmental Ethics.     

Hostile takeovers and methods of defense: A stakeholder analysis

During the last decade, there has been a wave of mergers and hostile takeovers throughout the corporate world. This wave has been accompanied by various defensive strategies of managers to defend target firms from these takeovers. These include: greenmail, golden parachutes, and leveraged management buyouts. This paper examines hostile takeovers and defenses against them from a stakeholder point of view; that is, from a consideration of the various obligations a firm has to the different groups that have a stake in the firm. I conclude that many stakeholders, such as workers and communities, have unjustly suffered as a result of hostile takeovers and the associated defenses, and that their rights as stakeholders have been violated. Finally, I suggest some possible reforms to protect these stakeholders in the future.Ken Hanly is an Associate Professor of Philosophy, at Brandon University. His interests are in business ethics and social philosophy. Recent publications include The Ethics of Rent Control in JBE 10(3) (1991), and a review ofBusiness Ethics, by R. De George, inCanadian Philosophical Reviews, Vol xi(3) (June, 1991). An article on The Moral Responsibility of Corporations is upcoming in Dialogue.     

The ethics of Nigeria's proposed withdrawal from the organisation of petroleum exporting countries

In the wake of the prevailing world oil glut which has affected the revenue earning powers of OPEC (Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members, there are serious proposals and arguments in favour of Nigeria's withdrawal from OPEC.The mission of this paper is to question the ethical basis of this proposed strategy after she has benefited from OPEC membership for over a decade. This paper postulates that it would be ethically wrong to do so and suggests a strategy that would boost the petrochemical industry for agriculture, building, pharmaceuticals, automative industry, etc. Dr. Bedford A. Fubara is Senior Lecturer and Head of the Department at the Rivers State University of Science and Technology in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. He was awarded the Columbia University Fellowship 1970–1972 and he received the Unesco Research Award in 1981/1982. His most important publications are: Negative Profitability Performances of Public Enterprises in Developing Countries: A Business Policy Anatomy, 1984, Public Enterprise 4; Government in Business, 1983, Management in Nigeria; Corporate Planning Art in Nigeria: The Experiental Evidence of Corporate Executive, Long Range Planning (forthcoming).This research was financed by the Rivers State University of Science and Technology under Project No. SRPC/014 dated 11th June, 1984.     

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.     

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).     

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