Employee governance, which includes employee ownership and employee participation in decision making, is regarded by manyas morally preferable to control of corporations by shareholders. However, employee governance is rare in advanced market economies due to its relative inefficiency compared with shareholder governance. Given this inefficiency, should employee governance be given up as an impractical ideal? This article contends that the debate over this question is hampered by an inadequate conception of employee governance that fails to take into account the difference (...) between employees and shareholders. It offers a different, more adequate conception of employee governance that recognizes a sense in which employees currently have some ownership rights. The argument for this conception of employee governance is built on an expanded understanding of the ownership of a firm. The article also suggests new strategies for strengthening the role of employees in corporate governance. (shrink)

Abstract:There is good reason to take a virtue-based approach to business ethics. Moral principles are fairly useful in assessing actions, but understanding how moral people behave and how they become moral requires reference to virtues, some of which are important in business. We must go beyond virtues and refer to character, of which virtues are components, to grasp the relationship between moral assessment and psychological explanation. Virtues and other character traits are closely related to (in technical terms, they supervene on) (...) personality traits postulated by personality psychologists. They may therefore be featured in respectable psychological explanations. But good character fits no familiar psychological pattern. A person of good character is sufficiently self-aware and rational that his or her virtues are not accompanied by the vices that psychologists find usually associated with them. A course in business ethics can help develop this self-awareness, which a good life in business requires. (shrink)

Abstract:The central problems of political philosophy (e.g., legitimate authority, distributive justice) mirror the central problems of business ethics. The question naturally arises: should political theories be applied to problems in business ethics? If a version of egalitarianism is the correct theory of justice for states, for example, does it follow that it is the correct theory of justice for businesses? If states should be democratically governed by their citizens, should businesses be democratically managed by their employees? Most theorists who have (...) considered these questions, including John Rawls inPolitical Liberalism, and Robert Phillips and Joshua Margolis in a 1999 article, have said “no.” They claim that states and businesses are different kinds of entities, and hence require different theories of justice. I challenge this claim. While businesses differ from states, the difference is one of degree, not one of kind. Business ethics has much to learn from political philosophy. (shrink)

In response to conventional rationalistic approaches to management and corporate governance, the Aristotelian tradition is emerging as a basis for alternative theories in which practical wisdom is central. This paper, following Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, considers the specificity of “political wisdom” -directed to the common good- as being different from individual practical wisdom. We suggest that the business firm is a “political community”, understood as a whole formed by free and intelligent individuals called to cooperate for common goals and to (...) pursue a common good. This orientation toward the common good requires political wisdom. After discussing the concepts of “political wisdom” and the business firm as “political community” we propose a number of implications of political wisdom in management and corporate governance. (shrink)

Die Entscheidung für oder gegen lebensverlängernde Behandlungsmaßnahmen geht inzwischen der Hälfte aller Todesfälle in Europa voraus. Sie wird im klinischen Alltag häufig als ethische Herausforderung wahrgenommen, zudem sind unter Klinikern juristische Unsicherheiten und Fragen der korrekten Vorgehensweise verbreitet. Die hier vorgestellte Münchner Leitlinie zu Entscheidungen am Lebensende soll rechtliche Unsicherheit reduzieren, Klinikumsmitarbeiter für die ethische Dimension von Therapieentscheidungen am Lebensende sensibilisieren und ethisch begründete Entscheidungen fördern. Aus organisationsethischer Perspektive soll mit der Leitlinie eine Reflexion und Meinungsbildung zu einem ethisch relevanten (...) Themenbereich erfolgen und ein Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung der Patientenversorgung und damit auch zur Patientenzufriedenheit geleistet werden. Die Prozesse der Leitlinienentwicklung, -aktualisierung und -implementierung werden vorgestellt. Die wesentlichen inhaltlichen Elemente der Leitlinie mit Darstellung der Rechtslage, der Definition zentraler Begriffe und Klärung medizinischer Entscheidungskriterien werden an Hand eines Entscheidungsalgorithmus dargestellt. Inhalt und Prozess der Leitlinienentwicklung werden auf die folgenden organisationsethischen Qualitätskriterien hin überprüft: deliberativer Prozess, inhaltliche Transparenz, repräsentative Zusammensetzung der Arbeitsgruppe, Implementierung und Evaluation der Leitlinie. Institutionen, die diese Leitlinie übernehmen wollen, sollten diese von einem autorisierten Gremium überprüfen lassen und auf die spezifischen Bedürfnisse ihrer Institution adaptieren. Hierfür ist eine vorgeschaltete Bedarfserhebung hilfreich. In dem Gremium sollten all diejenigen vertreten sein, die in der Folge mit der Leitlinie arbeiten werden. (shrink)

A number of recent authors, most notably Joseph Heath, have persausively defended a market‐centered account of corporate responsibility that grounds standards of business conduct upon the normative presuppositions of the market. They have us focus on two important items: first, the value of welfare, or Pareto efficient outcomes, which underwrites the legitimacy of market arrangements; and second, the behavioral requirements needed to assure that corporations conduct business in a manner consistent with this value. This article critically examines the aspirations of (...) this literature by embracing its basic method but questioning how well it understands the aim of the market. It puts forth a limited case for corporate responsibility anchored in other dimensions of the public good, distinct from the value of efficiency, and argues that a plausible understanding of corporate responsibility arises from the notion that market arrangements are sites of delegated social authority to provision other aspects of the common good. (shrink)