Why "Business's Nastier Friends" Should Not Be Libertarians

In this paper I address the issue of how far libertarianism can serve as the theoretical framework for a political morality excluding serious obligations to the needy. This issue has been raised recently by Gillian Brock who argues that even those adopting a thoroughgoing libertarianism, such as that of Robert Nozick, must recognise significant obligations to the needy as a condition of claiming exclusive property rights. I argue that Brock fails to demonstrate this. After briefly describing Brock's main argument I discuss the acquisition of libertarian property rights, and try to show there are sufficient resources in Nozick's account for him to accept her main conclusion in principle without recognising significant obligations. Then, after some supplementary discussion, I sketch two different lines of argument. One uses the issue of corporate liability. The other focusses on problems with Nozick's "entitlement" principle of rectification. I try to show that even if the libertarian entitlement theory of property rights, their acquisition and transfer, is accepted, this gives no grounds for resisting claims for redistribution based on others' needs.     

Guanxi and Conflicts of Interest

Guanxi involves interpersonal obligations, which may conflict with other obligations people have that are based on general or abstract moral considerations. In the West, the latter have been widely accepted as the general source of obligations, which is perhaps tied to social changes associated with the rise of capitalism. Recently, Western ethicists have started to reconsider the extent to which personal relationships may form a distinct basis for obligation. In administration and management, salient bases for decision-making include deontological, consequentialist and personalist ethics. The first may be reflected in a bureaucratic approach, the second in a price system, and the third in arrangements like guanxi. Each has positive and negative aspects, but problems arise when they lead to conflicting obligations, as may occur for an office holder who has some obligations based in deontological considerations and others based in personal relationships. This is a type of conflict of interest. Such conflicts have been considered in the West, and remedies proposed. Problems arise especially in cases where it is not clear how to prioritise different obligations, and this has been noted as a difficulty in the Chinese legal system. Questions that need to be answered include not only questions about how to deal with conflicting obligations, but also questions about what institutions to accept as giving rise to obligations. Institutions themselves may be problematic not only because of their consequences for economic productivity, but because they are internally incoherent, and this may be manifested in frequent conflicts faced by office holders. Chris Provis studied and taught philosophy, then worked for some years in industrial relations and now is Associate Professor in the School of Management at the University of South Australia, and Deputy Director of the Ethics Centre of South Australia. He has published articles in journals including Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, and Business Ethics: A European Review. His book Ethics and Organisational Politics was published by Edward Elgar in 2004.     

Vulnerability and the Basis of Business Ethics: From Fiduciary Duties to Professionalism

This paper examines the role of vulnerability in the basis of business ethics by criticizing its role in giving a moral substantial character to fiduciary duties to shareholders. The target is Marcoux’s (Bus Ethics Q 13(1):1–24, 2003) argument for morally substantial fiduciary duties vis-à-vis the multifiduciary stakeholder theory. Rather than proceed to support the stakeholder paradigm, a conception of vulnerability is combined with Heath’s 2004) “market failure” view of the ethical obligations of managers as falling out of their roles as professionals involved in the institution of the market. The result is the core of a theoretically defensible and managerially motivating and deployable ethic.     

Intrinsic limitations of property rights

Many people take for granted an absolute conception of property rights. According to this conception, if I own a piece of property I have a moral right to do with it as I please, irrespective of the needs of others.This paper articulates an argument against this conception of property rights. First, it shows that there are many possible conceptions of property rights, and that there are significant differences among the models of ownership which have prevailed in different societies. Then, it argues that there are decisive grounds to refuse to grant that property owners have a moral right to exercise absolute control over their property, and that ownership implies not only rights but also duties and limits.J. M. Elegido is Head of the Department of Business Ethics in the Lagos Business School. He has a doctorate in Law and has published numerous articles on social and legal philosophy and on legal issues in professional and academic journals. He has just published a book on Jurisprudence.     

Can we afford international human rights?

In a recent important book,The Ethics of International Business, Tom Donaldson argues that multinational corporations (as well as individuals and nationstates) must, at a minimum, respect international human rights. For a purported right to be such a fundamental right it must satisfy three conditions. Donaldson calls the third condition the fairness-affordability condition. The affordability part of this condition holds that moral agents must be capable of paying for the burdens and responsibilities that a proposed human right would impose. If this is impossible, then the purported right is not an international human right.I argue that Donaldson's affordability condition is subject to four objections which reveal its untenability as one of the conditions upon which identification of international human rights must rest. I offer another way of treating problems of affordability and capability when it comes to such rights that all moral agents must respect.George G. Brenkert is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Tennessee/Knoxville. He has recently completed a book,Political Freedom, to be published by Routledge. His current research focuses on issues in business ethics.     

Alienation in capitalist society

In a recent paper in this journal Charles B. Saunders et al. argue that corporations have no social responsibility regarding alienation in the workplace in that there is no significant degree of alienation in the workplace, at least in white collar and management level positions in corporate America.Contrary to Saunders et al., this paper defines the concept of alienation. Having done that, it proceeds to show that the argument Saunders et al. make flounders on logical grounds. I conclude that Saunders et al. provide no evidence for the claim that alienation is lacking (in any degree) in corporate America. J. Angelo Corlett is a fellow in the Philosophy Department at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has published papers in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business & Professional Ethics Journal, Public Affairs Quarterly and the American Psychologist. His areas of specialization are Social/Political Philosophy, Ethics and Value Theory. He is currently editing a book on Rawls and Nozick, and he is also doing research on analytical marxism. The former of these projects is funded by a research grant awarded to him by the University of California, Santa Barbara.     

Polestar refined: Business ethics and political economy

Although Friedman's The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits is widely read, the central argument is rarely identified. Stone's discussion of Friedman in Where the Law Ends, is often used as a companion piece. Stone claims that the most important argument in Friedman is the Polestar argument but never succeeds in explaining what it is. This paper shows that Friedman's position must be read in the context of his theory of political economy, and that at least four distinct utilitarian arguments are required to account for his views. Specifically, Friedman relies upon what I describe as Realistic Rule Utilitarianism in which utility is understood in terms of actual preferences. The weaknesses of this theory are then explained. John R. Danley is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophical Studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. Danley has published pieces on Rawls and Nozick in Mind and Philosophical Studies and in applied ethics in The Journal of Business Ethics and The Journal of Business and Professional Ethics.     

A Comment on Barnett and Block on Time Deposit and Bagus and Howden on Loan Maturity Mismatching

In Time Deposits, Dimension, and Fraud (2009), William Barnett and Walter Block argue that by borrowing short and lending long there is an over issuance of property rights. Their article, however, does not fully extend the consequences of their contribution. Once this is done, it becomes clearer that their argument suits a great impediment to banking, becoming a possible reason to support rather than to oppose fractional reserve banking. Bagus and Howden (J Bus Ethics 90(3):399–406, 2009) comment on Barnett and Block (J Bus Ethics 88(4):711–716, 2009), the authors claim that while maintaining the illegitimacy of fractional reserve deposits, borrowing short and lending long it is actually not illegitimate. An extension on Bagus and Howden (2009) will show that their line of argumentation can be applied as a defense of fractional reserve banking as well.     

Trust and Stakeholder Theory: Trustworthiness in the Organisation–Stakeholder Relationship

Trust is a fundamental aspect of the moral treatment of stakeholders within the organization–stakeholder relationship. Stakeholders trust the organization to return benefit or protections from harm commensurate with their contributions or stakes. However, in many situations, the firm holds greater power than the stakeholder and therefore cannot necessarily be trusted to return the aforementioned duty to the stakeholder. Stakeholders must therefore rely on the trustworthiness of the organization to fulfill obligations in accordance to Phillips’ principle of fairness (Business Ethics Quarterly 7(1), 1997, 51–66), particularly where low-power stakeholders may not be fully consenting (Van Buren III, Business Ethics Quarterly 11(3), 2001, 481–499). The construct of organizational trustworthiness developed herewith is presented as a possible solution to the problem of unfairness in organization–stakeholder relations. While organizational trustworthiness does not create an ethical obligation where none existed before, stakeholders who lack power will likely be treated fairly when organizational trustworthiness is present.     

Drug testing and corporate responsibility: The “ought implies can” argument

Most of the debate about drug testing in the workplace has focused on the right to privacy. Proponents of testing have had to tackle difficult questions concerning the nature, extent, and weight of the privacy rights of employees. This paper examines a different kind of argument — the claim that because corporations are responsible for harms committed by employees while under the influence of drugs, they are entitled to test for drug use. This argument has considerable intuitive appeal, because it seems, at least at first glance, to bypass the issue of privacy rights altogether. The argument turns, not on rights, but on the nature and conditions of responsibility. We may therefore call it an ought implies can argument.In spite of its initial appeal, however, the argument does not succeed in circumventing the claims of privacy rights. Even responsibility for the actions of others does not entitle us to do anything at all to control their behavior; we must look to rights, among other things, to determine what sorts of controls are morally permissible. In addition, the argument rests on unjustified assumptions about the connection between drug testing and the prevention of drug-related harm. Jennifer Moore is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. She does teaching and research in business ethics and business law and is co-editor of the anthology, Business Ethics: Readings and Cases in Corporate Morality, published by McGraw-Hill.     

Two ethical issues in mergers and acquisitions

With the recent rash of mergers and friendly and unfriendly takeovers, two important issues have not received sufficient attention as questionable ethical practices. One has to do with the rights of employees affected in mergers and acquisitions and the second concerns the responsibilities of shareholders during these activities. Although employees are drastically affected by a merger or an acquisition because in almost every case a number of jobs are shifted or even eliminated, employees at all levels are usually the last to find out about a merger transaction and have no part in the takeover decision. Second, if shareholders are the fiduciary beneficiaries of mergers and acquisitions, then it would appear that they have some responsibilities or obligations attached to these benefits, but little is said about such responsibilities. In this essay I shall analyze these two ethical issues, and at the end of the paper I shall suggest how they are related. Patricia H. Werhane is Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of Chicago. She is one of the founding members of the Society for Business Ethics. Her publications include Philosophical Issues in Art, Ethical Issues in Business, coedited with Tom Donaldson, Persons, Rights and Corporations, Philosophical Issues in Human Rights, edited with D. Ozar and A. R. Gini.     

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.     

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.     

Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics

Whether an action is morally right depends upon the alternative acts available to the agent. Actualists hold that what an agent would actually do determines her moral obligations. Possibilists hold that what an agent could possibly do determines her moral obligations. Both views face compelling criticisms. Despite the fact that actualist and possibilist assumptions are at the heart of seminal arguments in business ethics, there has been no explicit discussion of actualism and possibilism in the business ethics literature. This paper has two primary goals. First, it aims to rectify this omission by bringing to light the importance of the actualism/possibilism debate for business ethics through questions about the ethics of sweatshops. Second, it aims to make some progress in the sweatshop debate by examining and defending an alternative view, hybridism, and describing the moral and practical implications of hybridism for the sweatshop debate.

     

Let’s Talk Rights: Messages for the Just Corporation–Transforming the Economy Through the Language of Rights

Neoliberal globalization has not yielded the results it promised; global inequality has risen, poverty and hunger are still prevailing in large parts of this world. If this devastating situation shall be improved, economists must talk less about economic growth and more about people’s rights. The use of the language of rights will be key for making the economy work more in favor of the least advantaged in this world. Not only will it provide us with the vocabulary necessary to reframe such pressing global problems and to find adequate economic solutions; it will also deliver the basis for deriving according duties and duty-bearers – the language of rights is congruent with the language of justice and as such it is inevitably and at the same time the language of obligations. The language of obligations exposes the multinational corporation as one of the main agents of justice in the global economy. Taking distributive justice as a starting point for reflection, a consistent derivation of the multinational’s moral obligations must focus on capabilities rather than on causality. This will lead to a shift from merely passive to active duties and accordingly to a stronger emphasis on the corporation’s contribution to the realization of positive rights. Biography: Florian Wettstein is an assistant professor in the Department of Ethics and Business Law at University of St.␣Thomas. Before that, he taught in the Business and Society Program at York University (Toronto). Also, he was a research associate at the Institute for Business Ethics at the University St. of Gallen (Switzerland), a visiting scholar at Carroll School of Management at Boston College, and a research fellow in the Program on Human Rights and Justice at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).     

Reflecting on the Common Discourse on Piracy and Intellectual Property Rights: A Divergent Perspective

The common discourse on intellectual property rights rests mainly on utilitarian ground, with implications on the question of justice as well as moral significance. It runs like this: Intellectual property rights are to reward the originators for his/her intellectual labour mainly in monetary terms, thereby providing incentives for originators to engage in future innovative labouring. Without such incentives, few, if not none, will engage in creative activities and the whole human community will, thereby, suffer because of reduced inventions. However, such utilitarian argument on piracy as de-motivation may not be necessarily justified. In fact, intellectual property arrangement is one among different institutions concerning how the society may handle new ideas and creative works. In reality, private ownership over one’s intellectual product is merely a modern western concept that is being ‹advertised’ as being normative, which, by itself, is highly debatable. Alarming still, such normative argument assumes both justness and moral dimensions. This article will analyse whether such argument is philosophically sound.     

The Relationship between Religiousness and Corporate Social Responsibility Orientation: Are there Differences Between Business Managers and Students?

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether there is a relationship between a person’s degree of religiousness and corporate social responsibility orientation. A total of 411 managers and 506 students from seven universities were surveyed. The statistical analysis showed that religiousness does influence students’ orientation toward the economic, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities of business. It does not, however, have a significant impact upon the managers’ attitudes. When the “low religiousness” students and managers were compared, differences were found with respect to the economic, ethical, and philanthropic components of corporate social responsibility. Similar results were obtained when the “high religiousness” students and managers were compared. The implications of these findings are discussed. Nabil Ibrahim is the Grover Maxwell Professor of Business Administration at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Applied Statistics. Dr. Ibrahim’s articles have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Health Care Management Review, the Journal of Applied Business Research, as well as many other journals and proceedings. Donald P. Howard is an Associate Professor of Management at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship. His articles have appeared in a number of journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Case Research, and Health Care Management Review, as well as many proceedings. John Angelidis is Professor and Chair, Department of Management, St. John’s University, New York, NY. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and International Business. Dr. Angelidis has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Review of Business, Journal of Commerce and Management, as well as many other journals and proceedings.     

Understanding Social Welfare Capitalism,Private Property,and the Government’s Duty to Create a Sustainable Environment

No one would deny that sustainability is necessary for individual, business, and national survival. How this goal is to be accomplished is a matter of great debate. In this article I will show that the United States and other developed countries have a duty to create sustainable cities, even if that is against a notion of private property rights considered as an absolute. Through eminent domain and regulation, developed countries can fulfill their obligations to current and future generations. To do so, the governments must reject perfectly competitive free market capitalism and the absolute right to private property, and more fully adopt social welfare capitalism as their economic system. The result will be a sustainable society that balances democracy, individual rights and individual flourishing with the community’s flourishing.     

Corporate Social Responsibility: A Comparative Analysis of Perceptions of Practicing Accountants and Accounting Students

The results of a survey of 272 practicing accountants and 374 accounting students enrolled in six universities are analyzed. Differences and similarities between the two groups with regard to their attitudes toward corporate social responsibility are examined. The results indicate that the students exhibit greater concern about the ethical and discretionary components of corporate responsibility and a weaker orientation toward economic performance. No significant differences between the two groups were observed with respect to the legal dimension of corporate social responsibility. Some explanations as well as limited generalizations and implications are developed. Nabil Ibrahim is the Grover Maxwell Professor of Business Administration at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Applied Statistics. Dr.Ibrahim’s articles have appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics, Health Care Management Review, the Journal of Applied Business Research, as well as many other journals and proceedings. John Angelidis is Professor and Chair, Department of Management, St. John’s University, New York, NY. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and International Business. Dr. Angelidis has published articles in the Journal of Business Ethics, Business Review, the International Journal of Commerce and Management as well as many other journals and proceedings. Donald P. Howard is an Associate Professor of Management at Augusta State University, Augusta, Georgia. He teaches courses in Strategic Management and Entrepreneurship. His articles have appeared in a number of journals such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Applied Case Research, and Health Care Management Review, as well as many proceedings.     

Ethics and the organizational person: Revisiting DeGeorge

In this paper I review the dispute over DeGeorge's analysis of the issue of the ethical responsibilities of engineers in large organizations. I argue that this issue is no different than the question of the ethical responsibilities of any other relevantly situated employee because engineers have no special duty to hold paramount the safety of the public distinct from that of others. I demonstrate how critics like Mankin, James, and Curd and May have misread and misinterpreted DeGeorge's position and his argument. I then identify a serious logical problem in DeGeorge, unnoticed by critics, but conclude by defending the spirit of DeGeorge's approach. That spirit recognizes the limitations of attempting to provide necessary and sufficient conditions in response to many questions in applied philosophy. John R. Danley is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophical Studies at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. His Liberalism, Aboriginal Rights and Cultural Minorities, has recently appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs (1991). Polestar Refined: Business Ethics and Political Economy has recently appeared in Journal of Business Ethics (1991). Other articles have appeared in the following journals: Mind, Philosophical Studies, The Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, Business and Professional Ethics, Journal of Negro Education, and Journal of Business Ethics. Articles have also appeared in Action Theory and The Ethics of Organizational Transformation, and elsewhere.