Related categories
9 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
  1. A. Defence ofPhilosophical Business Ethics 1 (2003). Roger Crisp. In William H. Shaw (ed.), Ethics at Work: Basic Readings in Business Ethics. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  2. Donald E. Frey (1998). Individualist Economic Values and Self-Interest: The Problem in the Puritan Ethic. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 17 (14):1573-1580.
    The Puritan ethic is conventionally interpreted as a set of individualistic values that encourage a degree of self-interest inimical to the good of organizations and society. A closer reading of original Puritan moralists reveals a different ethic. Puritan moralists simultaneously legitimated economic individualism while urging individuals to work for the common good. They contrasted self-interest and the common good, which they understood to be the sinful and moral ends, respectively, of economic individualism. This polarity can be found in all the (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  3. Michael C. Jensen (2002). Value Maximization, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function. Business Ethics Quarterly 12 (2):235-256.
    Abstract: In this article, I offer a proposal to clarify what I believe is the proper relation between value maximization and stakeholder theory, which I call enlightened value maximization. Enlightened value maximization utilizes much of the structure of stakeholder theory but accepts maximization of the long-run value of the firm as the criterion for making the requisite tradeoffs among its stakeholders, and specifies long-term value maximization or value seeking as the firm’s objective. This proposal therefore solves the problems that arise (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   171 citations  
  4. Dominic Martin (2013). The Contained-Rivalry Requirement and a 'Triple Feature' Program for Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 115 (1):167-182.
    This paper proposes a description of the moral obligations of economic agents. It will show that a threefold division should be adopted to distinguish moral obligations applying to their interactions in the market, obligations applying to their interactions inside business firms and obligations applying to their interactions with agents outside the market. Competition might be permissible in the first case since markets are special patterns of social interactions (called adversarial schemes). They produce their benefits when agents try to satisfy exclusive (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  5. Jeffrey Moriarty (2005). On the Relevance of Political Philosophy to Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (3):455-473.
    The central problems of political philosophy (e.g., legitimate authority, distributive justice) mirror the central problems of businessethics. 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 (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   25 citations  
  6. Joakim Sandberg (2013). Profit Motive. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.
    The profit motive refers to what is generally taken to be the underlying motivation of business and commercial activity: to collect revenues in excess of costs or, more simply, to make money. While both “profit” and “profit motive” may be given more technical definitions in economics, the latter's meaning is typically broader in philosophical discussions and so, for example, even managers of nonprofit organizations may be accused of sometimes acting from a profit motive. The profit motive is typically the object (...)
    Remove from this list  
      Direct download  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  7. Joakim Sandberg (2008). The Tide is Turning on the Separation Thesis? Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (4):561-565.
    In my article "Understanding the Separation Thesis" I noted that most scholars in the business ethics field seemed to have accepted R. Edward Freeman's argument to the effect that what he calls "the separation thesis" should be rejected. I argue, however, that they seemed to understand this thesis (and its rejection) in quite different ways. This volume contains three responses to my article which, interestingly enough, can be taken to corroborate my original argument. I here make some brief comments on (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8. Joakim Sandberg (2008). Understanding the Separation Thesis. Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (2):213-232.
    Many writers in the field of business ethics seem to have accepted R. Edward Freeman’s argument to the effect that what he calls “the separation thesis,” or the idea that business and morality can be separated in certain ways, should be rejected. In this paper, I discuss how this argument should be understood more exactly, and what position “the separation thesis” refers to. I suggest that there are actually many interpretations (or versions) of the separation thesis going around, ranging from (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  9. Nachoem M. Wijnberg (2000). Normative Stakeholder Theory and Aristotle: The Link Between Ethics and Politics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 25 (4):329 - 342.
    Stakeholder theory is an important part of modern business ethics. Many scholars argue for a normative instead of an instrumental approach to stakeholder theory. Recent examples of such an approach show that problems appear with respect to the ethical foundation as well as the specification of the norms and the relation between corporate and individual responsibilities. This paper argues for the relevance of Aristotle's ideas on ethics and politics, and especially the link between them, for stakeholder theory. An Aristotelian approach (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   19 citations