What is the American business value system?

The model of free enterprise that has developed in the United States presupposes a value system. The central value is freedom. Next come goods and the means of acquiring them, viz., money and profit. Competition is central. But fairness of transactions is presupposed, and this implies honesty, truthfulness, and general respect for persons. Optimism and faith in the future have been ingredients from the start. Each of these values can be abused, and such abuses characterize the seamy side of capitalism. The Myth of Amoral Business helps undermine the values. Yet the changes American society is demanding of business can be seen as reaffirming the values the system presupposes. The imperative is for business to live up to its own best traditions — a social demand that business can and should meet if it wishes to continue as a system of free enterprise. Richard T. De George is University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Co-Director of the Center for Humanistic Studies at the University of Kansas. He is author or editor of thirteen books, including Ethics and Society; Ethics, Free Enterprise and Public Policy; and Business Ethics.     

Why Corporations Should Not Abandon Social Responsibility

Former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, in his recent book Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life (2007), rejects outright the call for increased corporate social responsibility. He believes that social responsibility advocates are wasting resources and efforts on a doomed project. This article suggests that while Reich raises several interesting concerns in his counter-intuitive book, especially about the rise in corporate political power, ultimately his argument is unconvincing. Worse yet, a careful reading suggests that Reich does not contemplate fully what it is he is asking business and society to give up in his call to jettison corporate social responsibility. The notion of corporate social responsibility is itself an extremely, valuable, and hard-won social asset. It is a vehicle for promoting transparency, more nuanced accountability, integrity, better communication, mutually beneficial exchange, and sensible development. In providing a language and vocabulary to critique business from both inside and outside its boundaries, it has becomes a necessary condition for business ethics and modern capitalism. It is especially important in a world of increasing global economics. Nevertheless, it is an extremely fragile asset. Books, like Reich’s Supercapitalism, that dismiss corporate social responsibility in such a facile way, are dangerous and risky in ways that perhaps even the authors themselves are unaware.     

Theology in business ethics: Appealing to the religious imagination

By appealing to the religious imagination Theology can make a distinctive contribution to business ethics. In the first part of the essay I examine what is entailed by appealing to the imagination to reason in ethics: through converging arguments the imagination enables us rationally to interpret reality and to infer obligations. In the following sections I consider the relevance of the religious imagination for business ethics. In the second part I explain the imagination's use of religious metaphor to establish its theological distinctiveness in ethical inquiry. Then in the final part I illustrate Theology's contribution to business ethics by studying the imagination's use of religious metaphor with regard to profit and to third world debt.Gerard Magill has degrees in Philosophy and in Moral Theology, with a Ph.D. He is an Assistant Professor (Theology) at Saint Louis University, teaching Moral Theology and Business Ethics. He is a member of the Faculty Committee for the University's new Center for Business Ethics.     

Business and games

This paper responds to the popular argument that business is like a game and is thus insulated from the demands of morality. In the first half of the paper, I offer objections to this argument as it is put forward by John Ladd in his well-known article, Morality and the Ideal of Rationality in Formal Organizations. I argue that Ladd's analysis is flawed both because it deprives us of the ability to assert that a business is acting badly or that its goals are irrational, and because it is internally inconsistent. In the second half of the paper, I give reasons for thinking that business is not like a game.Peter Heckman teaches business ethics at Santa Clara University. His publications on Nietzsche can be found inThe British Journal of Aesthetics andPhilosophy and Rhetoric.     

The Unholy Alliance of Business and Science

This paper will build on a recent article appearing in the Harvard Business Review that blamed the alleged crisis in management education on the scientific model that has been adopted as the sole means of gaining knowledge about human behavior and organizations. The solution, they argue, is for business schools to realize that business management is not a scientific discipline but a profession, and deal with the things a professional education requires. We will expand on this article and discuss its implications by looking at the scientific model from a philosophical perspective and dealing with the issue of whether management is a profession. Our discussion of these issues has implications for our understanding of business in society and the design of the business school curriculum. Rogene A. Buchholz is the Legendre-Soule Chair in Business Ethics Emeritus in the College of Business Administration at Loyola University of New Orleans. He has published over seventy-five articles and is the author of ten books in the areas of business and public policy, business ethics, and the environment. He is on the editorial board of several journals and served as chair of the Social Issues in Management Division of the Academy of Management. Sandra B. Rosenthal is Provost Eminent Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans. She has published approximately 200 articles and 11 books on various dimensions of American pragmatism and its relevance for other areas of philosophy, and in both books and articles has applied pragmatism to a wide range of business ethics issues. She is a member of the editorial board of several journals, and has served as president of numerous philosophical societies.     

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.     

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 and Crony Capitalism in Taiwan

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become increasingly popular in advanced economies in the West. In contrast, CSR awareness in Asia is rather low, both on the corporate and state level. However, recent events have shown that the CSR is receiving more attention by corporations in Asia. Recent development in CSR in Taiwan is one example of such a trend. A 2005 survey on the 700 publicly listed companies in Taiwan on␣CSR has highlighted the current CSR situation. Concurrently, the numbers of corporate scandals and corruption have dramatically increased over the past 6 years. Corporate CSR activities co-existing with pervasive corporate scandals create a phenomenon of contradictions. This article aims to report via the survey findings the current development of business ethics in corporate Taiwan; and to interpret the findings in context of Taiwan’s business ethos, especially its Confucian familism and crony capitalism. Po-Keung Ip, Ph.D., Professor of the Graduate Institute of Philosophy, National Central University, Taiwan. He is concurrently the Institute’s Director of the Applied Ethics Center. His research interests include business ethics, bioethics, and well-being of nations. His recent publications include Constructing a Social Contract for Corporations (2002), Business Ethics – Multistakeholder Responsibilities of the Corporation (2005) (in Chinese). Currently he is working on a book The Challenge of Corporate Social Responsibilities in Chinese Cultural Communities.     

Establishing Moral Business Culture in Newly Formed Democracies

Business Ethics is often regarded as a low priority in newly formed democracies, because it seems there are more urgent demands that have to be dealt with first. In this paper it is argued that this perception is not only wrong, but also dangerous. A lack of morality in business can undermine exactly those priorities that newly formed democracies regard as most urgent.It starts by indicating why morality in business is a precondition for the legitimacy of a market economy as well as for excellence in a global market economy. It continues to argue that ethics in business is also a precondition for establishing a legitimate political democracy. Once the necessity of moral business behaviour has been argued, the focus shifts to the main stumbling blocks that impede the development of moral business culture in newly formed democracies such as South Africa.In the final part of the paper, measures are discussed that can be taken to foster the development of moral business culture in these countries. The role that business leaders, politicians, civil society and the media can play in this regard are highlighted.     

Marxism,Business Ethics,and Corporate Social Responsibility

Originally delivered at a conference of Marxist philosophers in China, this article examines some links, and some tensions, between business ethics and the traditional concerns of Marxism. After discussing the emergence of business ethics as an academic discipline, it explores and attempts to answer two Marxist objections that might be brought against the enterprise of business ethics. The first is that business ethics is impossible because capitalism itself tends to produce greedy, overreaching, and unethical business behavior. The second is that business ethics is irrelevant because focusing on the moral or immoral conduct of individual firms or businesspeople distracts one’s attention from the systemic vices of capitalism. I argue, to the contrary, that, far from being impossible, business requires and indeed presupposes ethics and that for those who share Marx’s hope for a better society, nothing could be more relevant than engaging the debate over corporate social responsibility. In line with this, the article concludes by sketching some considerations favoring corporations’ adopting a broader view of their social and moral responsibilities, one that encompasses more than the pursuit of profit.     

HR's view of ethics in the work place: Are the barbarians at the gate?

Based on responses from 1078 human resource (HR) professionals, this study concludes that there is not an ethical crisis in the work place. Seven of 37 situations were rated as serious problems by more than 25% of the respondents. HR reported that their organizations are serious about uncovering and disciplining ethical misconduct, top management has a commitment to ethical business conduct, personal principles are not compromised to conform to company expectations, and performance pressures do not lead to unethical conduct. John Danley is Professor of Philosophy at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. His area of research is political philosophy and applied ethics. His publications include journals such as Philosophy and Public Affairs, Philosophical Studies, Mind, Southwestern Journal of Philosophy, and the Journal of Business Ethics. He has authored a book entitled The Role of the Modern Corporation in a Free Society (Notre Dame Press, 1994). Edward J. Harrick is Professor of Management and Director of Labor and Management Programs at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. His research interests concern organizational effectiveness, employee satisfaction, and human resource issues. His work has appeared in journals such as Personnel Administrator, Personnel, Training and Development Journal, Public Personnel Management, National Productivity Review and Consulting Psychology Journal. Diane Schaefer is Assistant Director of Labor and Management Programs at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. She has been involved in several large-scale survey research projects and employment selection validation studies. She was recently published in Consulting Psychology Journal. Donald Strickland is Professor of Management and Chair of the Department of Management at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. He recently published a work on the responses of accounting administrators to situations related to fund raising in higher education. His research has appeared in journals such as Issues in Accounting Education, Journal of Drug Issues, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and American Sociological Review. George Sullivan is Associate Professor of Management at Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville. He teaches business law and business and society. His research has focused on such topics as employment discrimination, drugs in the workplace, race harassment, sex harassment, and pregnancy discrimination. His work has appeared in Labor Law Journal, Business and Society, Business Insights, Industrial Management, and the Journal of the College and University Personnel Association.     

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.     

Should collective bargaining and labor relations be less adversarial?

In this paper I argue that the poker analogy is unsuitable as a model for collective bargaining negotiations. Using the poker game analogy is imprudent, its use undermines trust and ignores the cooperative features of business, and its use fails to take into account the values of dignity and fairness which should characterize labor-management negotiations. I propose and defend a model of ideal family decision-making as a superior model to the poker game. Norman E. Bowie is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Delaware. He presently holds a post as Director of the Center for the Study of Values. He previously was Executive Secretary of the American Philosophical Association. Norman E. Bowie's most important publications are: Business Ethics, Prentice-Hall, 1982 (author); Ethics, Public Policy and Criminal Justice, Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain Publishers, 1982 (co-editor); Ethical Theory in the Last Quarter of the 20th Century, Hackett Publishing, 1983 (editor); Ethical Theory and Business, 1st ed., 1979, 2nd ed., 1983, Prentice-Hall (co-editor); The Individual and the Political Order: An Introduction to Social and Political Philosophy, Prentice-Hall, 1977 (co-author); Towards a New Theory of Distributive Justice, University of Massachusetts Press, 1971 (author). He published numerous articles in Business and Applied Ethics.     

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.     

Groups,responsibility, and risk taking in business organizations

Discussions of risk taking in the modern business organization frequently focus upon the behavior of individual moral agents. Here I attempt to identify some of the complexities of risk taking when it is a group phenomenon and to do so in such a way as to shed some light upon the ethics of group risk taking in business organizations. Gregory Mellema is Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, where he has taught eleven years. He received his Ph.D. in Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) and subsequently has completed an M.B.A. at the University of Michigan. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Individuals, Groups, and Shared Moral Responsibility, and has published articles in over a dozen journals, including Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophia, and Philosophical Studies.     

Can business ethics be theological? What Athens can learn from Jerusalem

The work of philosophers in business ethics has been important in providing a systematic framework to analyze moral obligations of corporations and their many stakeholders. Yet the field of ethics as defined by the philosophers of the past two centuries is too narrow to do justice to what is at stake in the business world. Ethics in the theological perspective is not primarily concerned with analyzing situations so that one can make right decisions, but rather with reflecting on what is constitutive of the good life. Theological business ethics can apply a crucial corrective to the business ethics of philosophers by broadening the endeavor to include a vision of what constitutes a good life — of the kind of persons we want to be and the kind of communities we want to form. Oliver F. Williams, C.S.C., is on the faculty of the Department of Management at the University of Notre Dame where he teaches and researches in the field of business, society and ethics. He holds a Ph.D. in theology from Vanderbilt University and has had the experience of a research year at the Graduate School of Business Administration of Stanford University. His publications include five books, the most recent of which is The Apartheid Crisis: How We Can Do Justice in a Land of Violence (Harper & Row). He has published articles on business ethics in journals including Theology Today, California Management Review, Harvard Business Review and Business Horizons.     

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.     

Alienation and moral imperatives: A reply to Kanungo

Rabindra Kanungo's position that alienation at work can be eliminated within capitalism is critically evaluated. My argument is that Kanungo only emphasizes the psychological aspect of Marx's view of alienation. The failure to include the ontological element of alienation results in the confused position that alienation can be eliminated while workers are still being separated from their work by capital. The role that the right to private property plays in the maintenance of this separation is also seen to be a part of Marx's conception of alienation that is missing from Kanungo's analysis. The clarification of Marx's conception of alienation results in the position that organizations within capitalism cannot live up to the moral imperative to be socially responsible in removing alienation at work.Robert T. Sweet is an instructor of Philosophy at the University of Dayton. His research interests include: Marxist philosophy, business ethics, and philosophy of mind. HisMarx, Morality and the Virtue of Beneficence (Peter Lang), was published in November of 1991.     

Introduction: On raising value questions in business

This essay is an attempt to stress the need to understand and evaluate the human issues or values, which are implicit in business, on the one hand, and which arise in the course of business activity, on the other: e.g., freedom, responsibility, and human well-being. Business is a social institution; as such, it affects and is affected by our values as a cultured society.Michael H. Mitias is Professor of Philosophy at Millsaps College. He is the author of numerous essays in the areas of aesthetics and social and political philosophy.     

Business justice: Transactions,resources, and organisations

This paper outlines an egalitarian theory of business justice, and indicates its requirements in respect of the central business institutions of transactions, resources and organisations.David Wood, is Senior Lecturer in Law, and formerly Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Philosophy and Public Issues, University of Melbourne. He has published widely in legal and philosophical journals. He is assistant to the general editor, Nijhoff International Philosophy Series.