To commemorate 40 years since the founding of the Journal of Business Ethics, the editors in chief of the journal have invited the editors to provide commentaries on the future of business ethics. This essay comprises a selection of commentaries aimed at creating dialogue around the theme Business versus Ethics?. The authors of these commentaries seek to transcend the age-old separation fallacy :409–421, 1994) that juxtaposes business and ethics/society, posing a forced choice or trade off. Providing a contemporary take on (...) the classical question “if it’s legal is it ethical?”, David Hess explores the role of the law in promoting or hindering stakeholder-oriented purpose and governance structure. Jeffrey Harrison encourages scholars to move beyond the presupposition that businesses are either strategic or ethical and explore important questions at the intersection of strategy and ethics. The proposition that business models might be inherently ethical or inherently unethical in their design is developed by Sheila Killian, who examines business systems, their morality, and who they serve. However, the conundrum that entrepreneurs are either lauded for their self-belief and risk-taking, or loathed for their self-belief and risk-taking, is discussed by M. Tina Dacin and Julia Roloff using the metaphor of taboos and totems. These commentaries seek to explore positions that advocate multiplicity and tensions in which business ethics is not either/or but both. (shrink)

Stakeholder theory has become an influential framework for addressing organizational challenges, including those related to sustainability. Yet, the inclusion of nonhuman stakeholders in stakeholder theory is complicated by ontological and epistemological obstacles. To overcome these, we turn to art and posthumanist practice theory and examine artist-led practices by focusing on the projects of two pioneering eco-artists, Helen Mayer Harrison and Newton Harrison. In this way we identify the ontological and epistemological challenges that impede the inclusion of nonhumans into stakeholder theory, (...) showing that artist-led practices allow for the inclusion of nonhuman stakeholders in two ways: (1) by specifying the temporal, spatial, and outcome distinctions that ontologically hinder their inclusion; and (2) by explicating the reframing of knowing and the emotional and imaginative dimensions of knowing that epistemologically enable their inclusion. We expand on the theorizing of nonhuman stakeholder inclusion by understanding the inclusion of nonhumans, first, not as a fixed state that is to be achieved but rather as one that materializes and gains meaning through specific practices of knowing; and, second, not as merely the absence of exclusion but rather as a dynamic interplay, where inclusion and exclusion mutually constitute one another. By advancing stakeholder theory’s theorizing and understandings of inclusion and exclusion, we also respond to urgent and contemporary environmental challenges. (shrink)

Given the urgency of global crises, interest abounds in alternative organizational forms (e.g., multistakeholder social enterprises, MSEs), promising structural solutions to engage diverse stakeholders in the creation of joint social, economic, and democratic values. Yet, studies of the who, how, and why of stakeholder engagement are predominantly rooted in for-profit contexts, assuming objective boundaries between insider/outsider stakeholders and engagement as a means to an end. The context of MSEs challenges both of these assumptions. Based on interviews with leaders of 28 (...) French MSEs, I show how the latter made sense of their expectations versus the reality of stakeholder engagement. Leader sensemaking strategies informed the enactment of (revised) stakeholder engagement strategies to maintain coherence, or address misalignment, between expectations and reality. The article contributes to the literature by challenging assumptions of stakeholder engagement in for-profit firms. It also cautions against an overreliance on designated organizational forms to enable substantive stakeholder engagement. (shrink)

Organizations are increasingly expected by their stakeholders to tackle the “wicked” problems of society. These new pressures have created a highly equivocal corporate social responsibility (CSR) environment whereby firms face competing stakeholder perspectives regarding their CSR strategy. To reduce CSR environmental equivocality and determine a CSR strategy, organizations need to effectively and efficiently identify, evaluate, and exploit CSR initiatives to create financial and social value (i.e., shared value). In this paper, we explain how organizations can optimize their shared value creation (...) and promote the construction of intersubjective agreement, which can reduce CSR environmental equivocality. Theory is put forth that explains how the proper alignment of an organization’s level of CSR environmental equivocality, which is comprised of varying amounts of “unknowingness,” corporate entrepreneurship strategy, which promotes experimentation, and stakeholder engagement process, which facilitates information gathering and dissemination, supports the construction of intersubjective agreement. A typology of organizational shared value creation in equivocal CSR environments with four “ideal types” of organizations—Container, Explorer, Embracer, and Manager—is presented and an organization’s choice among and movement between types discussed. (shrink)

ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to explore the power of stakeholder consultation on employee engagement during a cross-border acquisition in a multi-cultural context. Further, to describe the psychosocial factors at play during the employee involvement process towards enhancing employee engagement.MethodsThis qualitative study presents the results from data collected in Tanzania through semi-structured interviews and analyzed in accordance with the hermeneutic circle and Tesch’s content analysis method.ResultsThe results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge to better understand the (...) psychosocial factors at play within a multi-cultural environment which inform stakeholder consultation and will enable or hinder employee engagement. A transitional space should be created, fostering mature stakeholder engagement, promoting employee inclusion, engagement, and knowledge sharing.ConclusionBringing together two worlds requires building bridges to cross the cliff between contexts and overcoming diversity challenges, while incorporating diversity management in the consulting process. A multi-cultural team should be established, incorporating diversity management, applying the principles of respect, participation and transparent communication, with regular feedback on decisions made. External stakeholders in authoritative positions are not well received and should consider traditional superiority versus business hierarchy when establishing leader-follower relationships. (shrink)