Just Doing Business or Doing Just Business: Google,Microsoft, Yahoo! and the Business of Censoring China’s Internet

This paper addresses the criticism recently directed at Internet companies who have chosen to do business in China. Currently, in order to conduct business in China, companies must agree to the Chinese government’s rule of self-censoring any information the government deems inappropriate. We start by explaining how some of these companies have violated the human rights of Chinese citizens to freely trade information. We then analyze whether the justifications and excuses offered by these companies are sufficient to absolve them of moral responsibility. We argue that both justifications and excuses offered are insufficient. Wilfully abiding by unjust laws, albeit necessary to do business in China, should not trump moral actions that protect rights. “This is not something we did enthusiastically, or not something that we are proud of at all.”– Elliot Schrage answering questions from Congress regarding Google’s decision to censor its Internet searches in China Neil Haddow is currently finishing his PhD in philosophy at the University of Waterloo. His interests are moral and political philosophy at the theoretical and applied levels. He is the co-author of another paper forthcoming in The Journal of Business Ethics on age discrimination and automobile insurance. G. Elijah Dann presently lectures for the Department of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. He is author of After Rorty: The possibilities for ethics and religious belief (Continuum Press, 2006), and is editor of a forthcoming book on Christianity entitled, Leaving Fundamentalism (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2007).     

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.     

Defining ‘business ethics’: Like nailing jello to a wall

Business ethics is a topic receiving much attention in the literature. However, the term ‘business ethics’ is not adequately defined. Typical definitions refer to the rightness or wrongness of behavior, but not everyone agrees on what is morally right or wrong, good or bad, ethical or unethical. To complicate the problem, nearly all available definitions exist at highly abstract levels. This article focuses on contemporary definitions of business ethics by business writers and professionals and on possible areas of agreement among the available definitions. Then a definition is synthesized that is broad enough to cover the field of management in a sense as full as most managers might conceive of it. Phillip V. Lewis is Professor of Management and Chairman of the Department of Management Sciences at Abilene Christian University. His most important publications includeOrganizational Communication: The Essence of Effective Management, Grid (1975, 1980), andManaging Human Relations, Kent (1983).     

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.     

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.     

The Decomposition of the Corporate Body: What Kant Cannot Contribute to Business Ethics

Kant is gaining popularity in business ethics because the categorical imperative rules out actions such as deceptive advertising and exploitative working conditions, both of which treat people merely as means to an end. However, those who apply Kant in this way often hold businesses themselves morally accountable, and this conception of collective responsibility contradicts the kind of moral agency that underlies Kant’s ethics. A business has neither inclinations nor the capacity to reason, so it lacks the conditions necessary for constraint by the moral law. Instead, corporate policies ought to be understood as analogous to legal constraints. They may encourage or discourage certain actions, but they cannot determine a person’s maxim – which for Kant is the focus of moral judgment. Because there is no collective intention apart from any intentions of the individual agents who act as members of the corporation, an organization itself has no moral obligations. This poses a dilemma: either apply the categorical imperative to the actions of particular businesspeople and surrender the notion of collective responsibility, or apply a different moral theory to the actions of businesses themselves. Given the diffusion of responsibility in a bureaucracy, the explanatory usefulness of collective responsibility may force business ethicists to abandon Kant’s moral philosophy.     

Environmental Sustainability Versus Profit Maximization: Overcoming Systemic Constraints on Implementing Normatively Preferable Alternatives

There is a systemic condition inherent in contemporary markets that compel managers not to pursue more morally preferable initiatives if those initiatives will require actions that conflict with profit maximization. Normative arguments for implementing morally preferable practices within the existing system fail because they are insufficient to counter-act the systemic conditions affecting decision-making that is focused on maximizing profit as the primary operational value. To overcome this constraint we must elevate a more normatively preferable value, ‚ideal environmental sustainability,’ to the level of being the primary filtering value through which other competing values are evaluated, prioritized, and implemented. In order for this to occur in practice, a change must be made relative to the laws, rules, and regulations that define and guide the market. This can be done by suitably defining the epistemic constraint of impartiality utilizing Rawls’ notion of a ‚veil of ignorance’ as a heuristic device. John K. Alexander is an Adjunct at Grand Valley State University (Allendale MI) and Grand Rapids Community College (Grand Rapids MI). Areas of interest include Socratic, philosophy, business/organizational ethics, health care ethics, and philosophy of management. He has published papers in HEC Forum, Teaching Philosophy, Philosophy of Management, Journal of Business Ethics and Business Ethics Quarterly. Prior to becoming a visiting professor at GVSU in 2001, he had thirty-five years experience working and managing in foundries.     

The spectrum of ethicality

Business ethics is the continuing process of re-defining the goals and rules of business activity. In times of rapid change, spurred equally by technological innovation within the business community and by societal expectations in the larger community, participants who share in that process of re-defining goals and rules should be sensitive to professional differences. Lawyers and executives, for instance, while seeking a common societal good, will utilize measurably different goals and methods based on differences in leadership style, accountability to constituents and client relationship generally. Because of these differences, definitions of what is ethical will vary as well, spread across a spectrum of ethicality. He was formerly a Teaching Assistant in Management Psychology Laboratory, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. His most important publication is: ‘The Ethical Side of Enterprise’,Sloan Management Review, MIT.     

Moral rules and moral ideals: A useful distinction in business and professional practice

The distinction between moral rules and moral ideals is presented and explained in various ways. The authors propose that people in business are required to obey the moral rules and have a choice with respect to ideals. Thus, they are not in a different position from that of anyone else in society.Four case studies are presented and discussed. The analytical approaches used by the authors' students are summarized and evaluated. The moral rules/ideals paradigm is described as helping discussants of the cases to establish congruence between business ethics and their personal set of values. Other values of the classroom discussion of ethics cases are considered.John W. Hennessey, Jr., is Jones Professor of Management at the Amos Tuck School of Business Administration, Dartmouth College. Previously he was Dean of this school and President of the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. Bernard Gert is Stone Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy at the Dartmouth College. From 1971 until 1974 and from 1979 until 1981 he was Chairman of the Philosophy Department and he was awarded the NEH-NSF Sustained Development Award 1980–1984. His most important publications are: The Moral Rules: A New Rational Foundation for Morality, Harper and Row, 1970, Harper Torchbook 1973, 2nd edition 1975, and Philosophy in Medicine: Conceptual and Ethical Issues in Medicine and Psychiatry, Oxford University Press, 1982 (co-authored with Charles M. Culver).Prof. Gert acknowledges support from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Grant RII-8018088 A03.     

The Role of Business Ethics,Personality, Work Values and Gender in Vocational Interests from Adolescents

The present study investigates how business ethics are related to vocational interest. Special attention has been paid to the relationship between business ethics and the interest in ‘enterprising’ and ‘social’ oriented professions. The results show that business ethics is only significantly correlated in a negative way, to enterprising vocational preferences. Moreover, the negative contribution of business ethics to the preference for entrepreneurial and managerial professions remains after controlling for personality and work values. Some work values also predict the entrepreneurial interest: Earnings, Influence, Competition, Innovation and Creativity. The personality traits Extraversion (positive) and Agreeableness (negative) have predictive validity, but this effect disappears after controlling for work values. In the ‘Discussion’ section, we pay attention to possible consequences of the negative relationship between business ethics and Entrepreneurial interest for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). We argue that efforts concerning realistic job previews will only be meaningful if they are completed with efforts to make people more sensitive for ethics in two other domains, namely education and business.     

Competitive Bluffing: An Examination of a Common Practice and its Relationship with Performance

Bluffing, a common and consequential form of competitive behavior, has been comparably ignored in the management literature, even though misleading one’s rivals is suggested to be an advantageous skill in a multifaceted and highly competitive environment. To address this deficiency and advance scholarship on competitive dynamics, our study investigates the moral reasoning behind competitive bluffing and, using a simulated market-entry game, examines the performance effects of bluffing. Findings suggest that decision makers’ views on the ethicality of bluffing competitors differ from their beliefs on the ethicality of misleading other organizational stakeholders. Analysis also indicates that decision makers who view competitor bluffing as more ethical (less unethical) are more willing to engage in competitive bluffing. Finally, while bluffing is often thought to be an effective business practice, results show that in the context of repeated interaction, bluffing is not conducive to high levels of performance and, in fact, can have undesirable consequences.     

Breaking the Rules: Examining the Facilitation Effects of Moral Intensity Characteristics on the Recognition of Rule Violations

This research project seeks to discover whether certain characteristics of a moral issue facilitate individuals’ abilities to detect violators of a conditional rule. In business, conditional rules are often framed in terms of a social contract between employer and employee. Of significant concern to business ethicists is the fact that these social contracts are frequently breached. Some researchers in the field of evolutionary psychology argue that there is a biological basis to social contract formation and dissolution in business. However, although it is inescapable that biological forces shaped a fixed neural structure that guides and limits humans’ abilities, we argue that characteristics of the situation in which the person finds himself or herself moderate the activation of these neural circuits in ordinary business social contract situations. Specifically, the moral intensity associated with the social contract conditional rule is likely to influence peoples’ abilities to detect violators of the rule. This study utilizes adapted versions of the Wason selection task and manipulates the issue-contingent moral intensity characteristics of magnitude of consequences, proximity, and social consensus to assess if moral intensity facilitates detection of rule violators. Results from this empirical study indicate no relationship between moral intensity characteristics and issue recognition but do provide insights into the evolutionary psychology approach. David M. Wasieleski is an Assistant Professor in the Leadership and Change Management Division of the A.J. Palumbo School of Business Administration and the John F. Donahue Graduate School of Business at Duquesne University. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. David’s recent research focuses on individuals’ biological propensity for ethical behavior and its effect on workplace relationships. His other research interests include moral intensity, cognitive moral development, stakeholder agenda-building, and policy learning. Sefa Hayibor is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Sobey School of Business at Saint Mary’s University (Canada). He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pittsburgh. His research interests include business ethics and ethical decision-making, stakeholder motivation and management, charismatic leadership, and cognitive heuristics and biases.     

Utility of Ethical Frameworks in Determining Behavioral Intention: A Comparison of the U.S. and Russia

Using Reidenbach and Robin‘s ( Journal of Business Ethics 7, 871–879, 1988) multi-criteria ethics instrument, we carried out the first empirical test of Robertson and Crittenden‘s (Strategic Management Journal 24, 385–392, 2003) cross-cultural map of moral philosophies to examine what ethical criteria guide business people in Russia and the U.S. in their intention to behave. Competing divergence and convergence hypotheses were advanced. Our results support a convergence hypothesis, and reveal a common emphasis on relativism. Americans are also influenced by the justice criterion while Russians tend to emphasize utilitarianism. Rafik I. Beekun (Ph.D., the University of Texas at Austin) is Professor of Management and Strategy in the Managerial Sciences Department at the University of Nevada, Reno. His current research focuses on business ethics, national cultures, and the link between management and spirituality. He has published in such journals as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations, Journal of Management, Journal of Business Ethics and Decision Sciences. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to him: MGRS 28, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557–0206. James Westerman is an Associate Professor of Management at Appalachian State University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the University of Colorado at Boulder. His research interests include person-organization fit, employee ethics, compensation, and selection. Jamal Barghouti (B.Sc., MBA, Ph.D Management) is currently Advisor on Petroleum Affairs, H.H. Ruler’s Court, Dubai. He is also a lecturer at local universities including Dubai University College in human resources management, international business, organizational behavior and business communication. He has about 35 years of experience in the oil industry in the U.S.A., U.K., Russia, and the Middle East.     

Hume’s Theory of Business Ethics Revisited

Hume’s examination of the conventions of property, trade, and contract addresses the moral foundations that make business possible. In this light, Hume’s theory of justice is also a foundational work in business ethics. In Hume’s analysis of these conventions, both philosophers and game theorists have correctly identified “proto” game-theoretic elements. One of the few attempts to offer a Humean theory of business ethics rests on this game-theoretic interpretation of Hume’s argument. This article argues that game-theoretic reasoning is only one part of a Humean business ethics and this can be shown by further analyzing Hume’s theory of justice. As we examine his theory, it becomes clear that Hume is not trying to show how it is always rational to respect the rules of business. Hume is not engaging in, or attempting, a reconciliation project and neither is a Humean business ethics. The final section of the article is a brief Humean analysis of the effectiveness of codes of ethics. The purpose of this section is not to decide the issue but to show how a Humean approach is both useful, relevant, and involves more than reconciling rationality and morality.     

Effects of the Use of the Availability Heuristic on Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations

Recent corporate scandals across various industries have led to an increased focus on research in business ethics, particularly on understanding ethical decision-making. This increased interest is due largely to managers’ desire to reduce the incidence of unwanted behaviors in the workplace. This article examines one major moderator of the ethical decision-making process – moral intensity. In particular, we explore the potential influence of a particular cognitive heuristic – the availability heuristic – on perceptions of moral intensity. It is our contention that moral intensity is a perceptual construct, and that individuals’ use of the availability heuristic will influence perceptions of moral intensity which, in turn, will affect how moral issues are viewed and ultimately resolved. In this article, we present propositions concerning possible relationships between the availabilities of various phenomena and the components that moral intensity comprises, and report on two studies examining the effects of availabilities on two␣of these components: magnitude of consequences and social consensus. Our findings indicated that the availability of consequences associated with an act was positively related to perceptions of the magnitude of consequences of that act. We also found that the availability of others who believe that a particular act is morally acceptable is positively related to perceptions of social consensus that that act is morally acceptable. We posit that our results suggest the possibility that perceptions of moral intensity can be actively influenced to reduce unethical behavior in organizations.     

Managers’ Moral Decision-Making Patterns Over Time: A Multidimensional Approach

Taking multidimensional ethics scale approach, this article describes an empirical survey of top managers’ moral decision-making patterns and their change from 1994 to 2004 during morally problematic situations in the Finnish context. The survey questionnaire consisted of four moral dilemmas and a multidimensional scale with six ethical dimensions: justice, deontology, relativism, utilitarianism, egoism and female ethics. The managers evaluated their decision-making in the problems using the multidimensional ethics scale. Altogether 880 questionnaires were analysed statistically. It is concluded that relying on the utilitarian principles is a core ethical evaluation criterion amongst top business managers in Finland. This study proves that managers’ moral decision-making patterns change over time. According to the results of this research, managers’ moral decision-making became more multidimensional during the study period. The change is explained by (1) the inclusion of female ethics items in the scale which allows managers to show more diversity in their decision- making, (2) the change in the Finnish economic context from depression to economic prosperity and growth during the study period, which is conducive to the spread of post materialist values, such as the importance of social relations and (3) the increasing public discussion of the importance ethical issues in business.     

Beyond Good and Evil: The Adiaphoric Company

In this article, six demoralising processes in the context of the company are identified. These processes promote a realm of ‘being-with’, in which outcomes of human interaction are evaluated on rational grounds, and on whether or not a particular action accorded with stipulated ethical rules. Thereby the realm of ‘being-for’, in which individuals are supported to take increased responsibility, is marginalized. The conclusion made is that not only do the demoralizing processes systematically produce moral distance between humans, which weakens individual spontaneous outbursts of sympathy to take increased moral responsibility, they also promise to release individuals from their moral ambivalence by declaring organised action morally indifferent. Organisational action is, in other words, declared as adiaphoric – beyond good and evil.     

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.     

Alasdair Macintyre’s Aristotelian Business Ethics: A Critique

This paper begins by summarizing and distilling MacIntyre’s sweeping critique of modern business. It identifies the crux of MacIntyre’s critique as centering on the fundamental Aristotelian concepts of internal goods and practices. MacIntyre essentially follows Aristotle in arguing that by privileging external goods over internal goods, business activity – and certainly modern capitalistic business activity – corrupts practices. Thus, from the perspective of virtue ethics, business is morally indefensible. The paper continues with an evaluation of MacIntyre’s arguments. The conclusion is drawn that MacIntyre’s critique, although partially valid, does not vitiate modern business as he claims. In short, modern business need not of necessity be antithetical to individuals’ pursuit of internal goods within practices.     

Profit: Some moral reflections

The issues of profit, its moral meaning, justification and role, need careful examination. Mistakes to be avoided in making moral sense of profit include the assumption that profitability establishes a company's moral rectitude. Profit is too complex a phenomenon to establish any such thing. Steps toward clarifying these issues include distinguishing profit as the goal of the corporation from the larger goals of the economy itself, and clarifying what we mean by profit. Profit often includes the moral or value consideration of having been rightly or fairly earned. This provides one starting point internal to business for formulating standards for business ethics. Paul F. Camenisch (B.A., Centre College of Kentucky; B.D., Yale University Divinity School; Ph.D., Religion, Princeton University) is professor of Religious Studies, DePaul University, Chicago. His writing and research currently focus in applied areas such as business, medical and professional ethics. His articles have appeared in such journals as Hastings Center Report, Journal of Religious Ethics, Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Soundings, Listening, and Linacre Quarterly. His book, Grounding Professional Ethics in a Pluralistic Society, was published by Haven Publications in 1983.