Debunking Corporate Moral Responsibility

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Velasquez
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Moral Agent ◽  
Corporate Moral Responsibility ◽  
Corporate Organization ◽  
As If

Abstract:I address three topics. First, I argue that the issue of corporate moral responsibility is an important one for business ethics. Second, I examine a core argument for the claim that the corporate organization is a separate moral agent and show it is based on an unnoticed but elementary mistake deriving from the fallacy of division. Third, I examine the assumptions collectivists make about what it means to say that organizations act and that they act intentionally and show that these assumptions are mistaken in their failure to understand the nature of intentional causality and of “as-if” intentionality. In exposing these mistakes I set out my own view in the form of two theses, the first of which states that individual members of an organization are always causally responsible for any corporate act, and the second of which states that attributions of intentions to corporations are always either descriptive or prescriptive attributions of “as if” intentionality.

Corporate Moral Responsibility: When it Might Matter

1995 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 555-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Corporate Responsibility ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
Corporate Control ◽  
Corporate Moral Responsibility ◽  
Research And Teaching ◽  
Ethics Research ◽  
Socialization Processes ◽  
Practical Implications

Abstract:The debate over corporate moral responsibility has become a fixture in business ethics research and teaching. Only rarely, however, does the sizable literature on that question consider whether the debate has important practical implications. This article examines that question from a corporate control perspective. After assuming corporate moral responsibility’s existence for purposes of argument, the article concludes that such responsibility makes a difference in cases where it is present but personal responsibility is absent. Then the article tries to identify the forces that diminish personal responsibility when corporate responsibility exists. The most important such forces, it concludes, spring from the socialization processes people undergo when they enter groups. One example is the well-known phenomenon of groupthink, which can exculpate individuals by rendering them justifiably ignorant of foreseeable risks of harm.

The Promise of Pragmatism: Richard Rorty and Business Ethics

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Sareh Pouryousefi ◽  
R. Edward Freeman
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Richard Rorty ◽  
Business Practice ◽  
Global Markets ◽  
Democratic Deliberation ◽  
Philosophical Inquiry ◽  
Societal Challenges ◽  
Modern Slavery ◽  
Empirical Context

Pragmatists believe that philosophical inquiry must engage closely with practice to be useful and that practice serves as a source of social norms. As a growing alternative to the analytic and continental philosophical traditions, pragmatism is well suited for research in business ethics, but its role remains underappreciated. This article focuses on Richard Rorty, a key figure in the pragmatist tradition. We read Rorty as a source of insight about the ethical and political nature of business practice in contemporary global markets, focusing specifically on his views about moral sentiments, agency, and democratic deliberation. Importantly for business ethicists, Rorty’s approach sets in stark relief our moral responsibility as useful, practical thinkers in addressing the societal challenges of our time. We use “modern slavery” as an empirical context to highlight the relevance of Rorty’s approach to business ethics.

Do We Believe in Consequences? Revisiting the “Incoherence Objection” to Penal Substitution

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-228
Author(s):  
Christopher Woznicki
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Special Reference ◽  
Union With Christ ◽  
Corporate Moral Responsibility ◽  
Penal Substitution

Summary Among recent assessments of penal substitutionary accounts of atonement one significant critique is Mark Murphy’s “incoherence objection.” In this essay I express general agreement with Murphy’s critique of penal substitution, yet I suggest that there is a way to reconceive the doctrine of atonement such that it is conceptually coherent, is commensurate with scripture, and is a version of penal substitution. I call this view: The Penal-Consequence View of Atonement. This is a view of atonement that makes use of a distinction between what I call “penal consequences” and “mere consequences.” The view is defended with special reference to the topics of corporate moral responsibility and union with Christ.

scholarly journals When Do Powerful Stakeholders Give Managers the Latitude to Balance All Stakeholders’ Interests?

2018 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 232-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flore M. Bridoux ◽  
Pushpika Vishwanathan
Keyword(s):  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Stakeholder Theory ◽  
Bargaining Power ◽  
Value Appropriation ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
As If

Research in instrumental stakeholder theory often discusses the benefits of a stakeholder strategy that balances all stakeholders’ interests as if the firm’s managers were not constrained much in choosing a strategy. Yet, through their value appropriation behavior, stakeholders with high bargaining power can significantly constrain managers’ choices. Our objective is, therefore, to understand when powerful stakeholders give managers the latitude to balance all stakeholders’ interests, rather than forcing them to satisfy primarily their own interests. Building on enlightened self-interest and the justice literature, we identify five motivational drivers that help explain powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. We next explore the endogenous relationship between the stakeholder strategy adopted by the firm and its effect on powerful stakeholders’ value appropriation behavior. This article complements instrumental stakeholder theory by looking at powerful stakeholders’ motivation to exercise their bargaining power, and in so doing brings powerful stakeholders’ moral responsibility in the treatment of weak stakeholders to the forefront.

No Character or Personality

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert Harman
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Business Ethics ◽  
Moral Responsibility ◽  
Virtue Ethics ◽  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Academic Discipline ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Character Traits ◽  
Personality Theory

Abstract:Solomon argues that, although recent research in social psychology has important implications for business ethics, it does not undermine an approach that stresses virtue ethics. However, he underestimates the empirical threat to virtue ethics, and his a priori claim that empirical research cannot overturn our ordinary moral psychology is overstated. His appeal to seemingly obvious differences in character traits between people simply illustrates the fundamental attribution error. His suggestion that the Milgram and Darley and Batson experiments have to do with such character traits as obedience and punctuality cannot help to explain the relevant differences in the way people behave in different situations. His appeal to personality theory fails, because, as an intellectual academic discipline, personality theory is in shambles, mainly because it has been concerned with conceptions of personality rather than with what is true about personality. Solomon’s rejection of Doris’s claims about the fragmentation of character is at odds with the received view in social psychology. Finally, he is mistaken to think that rejecting virtue ethics implies rejecting free will and moral responsibility.

When Organization Theory Met Business Ethics: Toward Further Symbioses

2010 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pursey P. M. A. R. Heugens ◽  
Andreas Georg Scherer
Keyword(s):  
Business Ethics ◽  
Organization Theory ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Potential Contribution ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Concise Overview ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Research Themes ◽  
As If

ABSTRACT:Organization theory and business ethics are essentially the positive and normative sides of the very same coin, reflecting on how human cooperative activities are organized and how they ought to be organized respectively. It is therefore unfortunate that—due to the relatively impermeable manmade boundaries segregating the corresponding scholarly communities into separate schools and departments, professional associations, and scientific journals—the potential symbiosis between the two fields has not yet fully materialized. In this essay we make a modest attempt at establishing further connectivity by surveying the terrain covered by the two disciplines jointly, as if the boundaries between them did not matter. We commence by providing a concise overview of the organization theory discipline for interested non-specialists from the field of business ethics. Next, we proceed to point out four research themes commonly investigated by members of both communities, and also a variety of organization-theoretical perspectives on each. In the final part of this essay we explore what organization theory has to offer business ethics, and what the boundaries of that potential contribution are. We warn skeptical readers in advance that the spirit and tone of our essay is most definitely upbeat, as we are convinced that the potential for symbiosis between the two fields is vast and inspiring, even though it has only been unleashed partially and incidentally thus far.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document