This article explores the links between strategic goals, enterprise risk management, and ethics. We offer a typology of managerial attitudes toward strategic goals and rationality and explore the interaction between strategic and ethical decision making. In so doing, we offer a practical framework for managers to approach ethical dilemmas in the highly complex, volatile, and risky economy that we currently find ourselves in.

Instrumental Stakeholder Theory has begun to suffer from what might be termed “mission drift.” Despite its initial success in creating a foothold for ethics in managerial decision-making, the efficiency arguments which now dominate this research stream have become counterproductive to the original goal of connecting ethics and capitalism. We argue in this paper that the way forward is by re-centering contingency, conversation, and inefficiency in stakeholder theory. To start this process, there needs to be a reckoning of some unintended impacts (...) of the success of the instrumental stream of stakeholder research. For a contrasting approach, we draw on Richard Rorty’s pragmatism and its foundation of ethical “irony,” a state of continuous doubts about the utility of one’s moral vocabulary. We offer a Rortian approach to stakeholder theory, unearthing the possibility for new corporate target functions in the goals of harm reduction, solidarity, and social mobility, the foundational building blocks of an ironist ethical perspective. (shrink)

One need only look at the news to be bombarded with examples of corporate malfeasance and the impact such behavior has on a company's public image, customers, employees, and bottom line. And while these stories grab the headlines, some companies are adopting practices that display awareness of their impact on the globe, whether that be to the environment, its employees and suppliers, or communities in which they do business. What factors are leading to these decisions? What are the benefits and (...) costs of making ethical business decisions and acting in a socially responsible way, however one defines it? (shrink)

Managers are most likely to turn to the board of directors for guidance during a period of crisis. But can good corporate governance prevent an organization from reaching that critical point in the first place? In light of the recent global financial crisis, this question has become all the more pressing, and so to prevent future crises, we argue that corporate boards of directors need to be keenly aware of the potential social harms that might arise from the value-creating activities (...) of the firm they are tasked with monitoring. Boards of directors must be vigilant in understanding the firm’s value proposition, perceiving the potential harms that managers tend to overlook, and inserting themselves into the strategy-making process. We offer a typology of scenarios involving potential social harm and benefit and analyze when boards of directors must take a more active role in shaping firm strategy despite resistance from management. (shrink)