Skip to main content
Log in

An Adversarial Ethic for Business: or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the economic literature on the firm, especially in the transaction–cost tradition, a sharp distinction is drawn between so-called “market transactions” and “administered transactions.” This distinction is of enormous importance for business ethics, since market transactions are governed by the competitive logic of the market, whereas administered transactions are subject to the cooperative norms that govern collective action in a bureaucracy. The widespread failure to distinguish between these two types of transactions, and thus to distinguish between adversarial and non-adversarial relations, has led many business ethicists to develop a “uniform” moral code. Yet in market transactions, the checks and balances built into the system of commercial exchange are such as to permit more instrumental forms of behavior. In administered transactions, by contrast, these checks and balances are absent, and thus the institutional context calls for much greater exercise of moral restraint. In this paper, I begin the task of developing an adversarial ethic for business. According to this view, the competitive environment licenses a greater range of “self-interested” behavior, but also imposes its own constraints on the strategies that firms may adopt in the pursuit of their interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Applbaum A. I. (1999) Ethics for Adversaries. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K., Debreu G. (1954) Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica 27: 82–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K. (1973) Social Responsibility and Economic Efficiency. Public Policy 21: 303–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L.: 1979 “A Plea for Excuses,” in idem, Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)

  • Baier K. (1958) The Moral Point of View. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron M. (2005) Justifications and Excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2: 387–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol W. (1974) Business Responsibility and Economic Behavior. In: Anshen M. (eds) Managing the Socially Responsible Corporation. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Blake J., Amat O., Dowds J. (1998) The Ethics of Creative Accounting. In: Gowthorpe C., Blake J. (eds) Ethical Issues in Accounting. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatright J. R. (2002) Justifying the Role of the Shareholder. In: Bowie N. E. (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite J. (1981) The Limits of Economism in Controlling Harmful Corporate Conduct. Law and Society Review 16: 481–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan A. (1996) Toward a Theory of the Ethics of Bureaucratic Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 6: 419–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark R. C. (1985) Agency Costs versus Fiduciary Duties. In: Pratt J. W., Zeckhauser R. J. (eds) Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase R. (1937) The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4: 386–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman J. W. (1989) The Criminal Elite: The Sociology of White Collar Crime. St. Martin’s, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission for Fair Play (1993) The Attitude of Canadian Youth and Coaches Concerning Fair Play. Government of Canada, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrooke F. H., Fischel D. R. (1991) The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Economist: 2005. ‘Survey: Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Economist, Jan. 20

  • Feezell R. M. (1988) Sportsmanship. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraleigh Warren. (1984) Right Actions in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank R. H., Cook P. J. (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is the Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13

  • Galbraith J. K. (1952) American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Houghton Mifflin, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier D. (1982) No Need for Morality: The Case of the Competitive Market. Philosophic Exchange 3: 41–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier D. (1986) Morals by Agreement. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster K. (1991) Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath J. (2001) The Efficient Society. Penguin, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath J. (2003) A Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics. In: Hodgson B. (eds) The Invisible Hand and the Common Good. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Langtry B. (1994) Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibility of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 431–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Leaman O. (1988) Cheating and Fair Play in Sport. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey R., Lancaster K. (1956) The General Theory of the Second Best. Review of Economic Studies 24: 11–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLean B., Elkind P. (2003) The Smartest Guys in the Room. Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schotter A. (1981) The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W. J. (2001) The Moral Conditions of Economic Efficiency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipman A. (1999) The Market Revolution and Its Limits. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon R. L. (1988) Good Competition and Drug-Enhanced Performance. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Skillen A. (1998) Sport is for Losers. In: McNamee M. J., Parry S. D. (eds) Ethics and Sport. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen J., Buisman A., van Hilvoorde I. (2001) Meanings of Fair Play in Competitive Sport. In: Steenberger J., De Knop P., Elling A. (eds) Values and Norms in Sport. Meyer and Meyer Sport, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Heath.

Additional information

Joseph Heath is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the Centre for Ethics at the University of Toronto. He is the author of three books: Communicative Action and Rational Choice (MIT Press, 2001), The Efficient Society (Penguin, 2001), and with Andrew Potter. The Rebel Sell (HarperCollins, 2004). His research focuses on practical rationality, normative economics, and critical theory.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heath, J. An Adversarial Ethic for Business: or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder. J Bus Ethics 72, 359–374 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9175-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9175-5

Keywords

Navigation