Recent corporate scandals raise an old question anew: is capitalism fundamentally infected by immorality? A now almost forgotten answer to this question was advanced at the dawn of capitalism, an answer that students of business ethics would find profit in considering. In the early eighteenth century, Bernard Mandeville authored The Fable of the Bees, which became notorious in its day for arguing that capitalism created wealth while necessarily relying on vicious impulses. The fundamental dilemma is that morality requires self-denial while (...) capitalism runs on self-interest. As such, Mandeville claims that business and ethics are essentially separate.While this would appear to align him with skeptics of business ethics, Mandeville does suggest a role for moral theorists in dealing with the challenges of commercial societies. The Mandevillean business ethicist proceeds by separating the public and private spheres. In the former, where government policy toward business is at issue, the Mandevillean ethicist applies a market-friendly utilitarianism. In the latter, where individual conduct is at issue, the Mandevillean gently articulates a market-critical ethic predicated on self-restraint. (shrink)

Mounting evidence suggests that socioeconomic status is a determinant of health. As nations around the globe increasingly rely on market-based economies, the corporate sector has come to have a powerful influence on the socioeconomic gradient in most nations and hence upon the health status of their populations. At the same time, it has become more difficult for any one nation to influence corporate activities, given the increasing ease with which corporations relocate their operations from country to country, As a result (...) of all of these factors, nations wishing to assure the health of their populations will need to both involve the corporate sector and cooperate with other nations.In this article, we review the business ethics literature and consider what justification it might provide for requiring multinational corporations to attend to concerns about population health. (shrink)

This article provides an overview of the field of business ethics.

ABSTRACT:The distinction between what I call nonelective obligations and discretionary obligations, a distinction that focuses on one particular thread of the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, helps us to identify the obligations that carry over from principals to agents. Clarity on this issue is necessary to identify the moral obligations within “shareholder primacy”, which conceives of managers as agents of shareholders. My main claim is that the principal-agent relation requires agents to fulfill nonelective obligations, but it does not always (...) require discharging discretionary obligations. I show that the requirement to fulfill nonelective obligations is more far-reaching than has been acknowledged by most defenders and critics of shareholder primacy. But I also show that managers are not bound by certain discretionary obligations like charity, showing that their moral obligations are more circumscribed than the obligations that apply to human beings in general. (shrink)

Are corporations ever morally obligated to engage in counterspeech—that is, in speech that aims to counter hate speech and misinformation? While existing arguments in moral and political philosophy show that individuals and states have such obligations, it is an open question whether those arguments apply to corporations as well. In this essay, I show how two such arguments—one based on avoiding complicity, and one based on duties of rescue—can plausibly be extended to corporations. I also respond to several objections to (...) corporate counterspeech. (shrink)

Many ethical issues facing managers of multinational corporations are polycentric problems. That is, they involve a number of distinct centers -- each of which define rights and obligations of a multiplicity of affected parties -- and resolving matters around one center typically creates unpredictable repercussions around one or more of the other centers. Polycentricity is a normative phenomenon especially unsuited for adjudication, often requiring recourse to alternative processes of contract (or reciprocal adjustment) and managerial direction. This study explores how such (...) concerns about the limits of adjudication (and its various moral counterparts) apply to international decisionmaking connected to human rights obligations of multinational companies. The focus is on ethical problems such as controlling child labor in LDCs such as Bangladesh, India and Pakistan; setting wages in developing countries like Honduras; and conducting business transactions with rights-violating regimes, such as the governments of Nigeria and Myanmar. (shrink)

The modern corporation offers significant potential to contribute to the human rights project, in part because it is free from the challenges posed by national sovereignty. That promise has begun to be realized in businesses practicing corporate due diligence with regard to the human rights of persons involved in or affected by those enterprises. Yet due diligence preserves the self-seeking orientation of the conventional corporation and seeks only to protect itself from committing human rights abuses. This approach, typified by the (...) UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, does not address background conditions for and root causes of vulnerability to human rights abuses. My alternative, the human rights corporation, takes an other-regarding orientation that advances human rights within the corporation and in its human, social, economic, and natural environments. It moves beyond the due diligence carrot-and-stick model to a model in which the corporation produces not only goods and services but also human rights consciousness and practice as well. (shrink)

According to Palazzo and Scherer, the changing role of business corporations in society requires that we take new measures to integrate these organizations into society-wide processes of democratic governance. We argue that their model of integration has a fundamental problem. Instead of treating business corporations as agents that must be held accountable to the democratic reasoning of affected parties, it treats corporations as agents who can hold others accountable. In our terminology, it treats business corporations as “supervising authorities” rather than (...) “functionaries.” The result is that Palazzo and Scherer’s model does not actually address the democratic deficit that it is meant to solve. In order to fix the problem, we advocate removing business corporations from any policymaking role in political CSR and limiting participation to political NGOs and other groups that meet the standards we set out for a politically representative organization (PRO). (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe social responsibility of business has been a prominent issue in the academic and practitioner literatures, as well as in the curricula of business schools, for many years. While Friedman's iconic defense of profit maximization as the responsibility of management has been widely and extensively assailed, emerging positions on the role of business in society offer little clear and practical guidance to current managers, as well as Masters of Business Administration students. I argue in this article that the focus of (...) the debate should shift to considering how the rules of the game surrounding business' behavior should be formulated and what the role of socially responsible managers should be in helping to establish those rules. My contention is that the goal of society should be to strengthen the linkage between the achievement of social objectives and profit maximization by business through “bright line” regulations and laws. Socially responsible managers will participate in setting the rules of the game by advising policymakers on how specific regulations and laws can be structured so that they most effectively condition the linkage between social objectives and profit maximization. If there is a unique social responsibility of managers beyond profit maximization, it is to participate in the policymaking process “honestly,” that is, without attempting to game the system through guile and opportunism. (shrink)