This article is concerned with the moral permissibility of corporate political activities under the existing legal framework in the United States. The author unpacks and examines the standard case for and against the involvement of business in lobbying and electoral activities. And the author provides six objections against the standard arguments and proposes that the wrongness of corporate political activities does not have much to do with its potential social consequences but rather with nonconsequentialist considerations. The author’s ultimate aim is (...) to make sense of the intuition that corporate political spending is morally objectionable. The author argues that his case against corporate political spending fares better than the standard case. What is wrong with the current system of regulation of corporate lobbying and campaign finance is that it is inconsistent with the principles of political equality and consent. By taking advantage of this unfair regulatory framework, business firms are making a contribution to undermine the basis of a robust democratic regime at both the societal and the corporate level. (shrink)

This article analyzes the operations of the French group Lafarge in Syria during the civil war between 2011 and 2014, to understand the conflict-sensitive practices of a multinational company (MNC) in an area of limited statehood (ALS). We examine how and why the company decided to continue operating its plant in Syria during this intrastate conflict, resulting in financing terrorist groups like ISIS. We highlight the key operational and managerial decisions made by headquarters and local operations and relate them to (...) the conflict situation in the ALS in question. We contribute, with the idea of the firm’s “organization of short-sightedness,” to the understanding of how strategic decisions may lead to a structural inability to fully comprehend the local dangers and the implications for the employees, and how this may lead to a redefinition of legitimate and illegitimate stakeholders in conflict zones. A drawn-out process, stemming from a willingness to stay at all cost in an ALS environment, leads to misinterpretation of the danger and an acute dependency on local stakeholders. (shrink)

Michael Walzer is one of the most distinguished political philosophers and social critics of this century. His ideas have had great import and influence in political philosophy and political discussion, yet very few of his ideas have been incorporated explicitly into the business ethics literature. We argue that Walzer’s work provides an important conceptual canvas for business ethics scholars that has not been adequately explored. Scholars in business ethics often borrow from political theory and philosophy to generate new insights and (...) develop new substantive contributions. Many valuable theoretical resources are already used extensively—particularly Aristotle, Kant, Marx and a variety of utilitarian philosophers. Walzer offers another set of resources to bring to the conversation of what business ethics is and how business ethicists add value. This paper provides an opportunity to delve further into Walzer’s writings, particularly themes that are tied to business ethics, and to illustrate how his ideas can be extended to reshape our understanding of the field and develop new perspectives on ethical issues in commerce. (shrink)

This article is concerned with the moral permissibility of corporate political activities under the existing legal framework in the United States. The author unpacks and examines the standard case for and against the involvement of business in lobbying and electoral activities. And the author provides six objections against the standard arguments and proposes that the wrongness of corporate political activities does not have much to do with its potential social consequences but rather with nonconsequentialist considerations. The author’s ultimate aim is (...) to make sense of the intuition that corporate political spending is morally objectionable. The author argues that his case against corporate political spending fares better than the standard case. What is wrong with the current system of regulation of corporate lobbying and campaign finance is that it is inconsistent with the principles of political equality and consent. By taking advantage of this unfair regulatory framework, business firms are making a contribution to undermine the basis of a robust democratic regime at both the societal and the corporate level. (shrink)

The Russia–Ukraine war has challenged our understanding of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Whereas CSR is traditionally associated with business self-regulation that benefits business and society, the conflict has revealed new forms of what we call “partisan CSR.” Based on comprehensive data from Fortune Global 500 firms, this study discovers that in particular Western, but also some non-Western, corporations have engaged in partisan CSR activities, ranging from (1) strengthening Ukraine’s economy, to (2) enhancing security and protection for Ukrainian citizens, (3) providing (...) military support, (4) weakening Russia’s economy, and (5) supporting Ukraine in symbolic ways. By comparison, several mostly non-Western firms, e.g. from Asian countries, have chosen to be “neutral”, while, in some cases, exploiting economic opportunities arising from the conflict. This study also discusses major drivers of these CSR responses, including political climate, resource availability and economic dependency, isomorphism, and regulatory requirements. Our findings suggest a shift from political CSR to partisan CSR, which we expect to become more important with growing geopolitical divides and territorial conflicts. (shrink)