We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 January 2015
In "The language of International Corporate Ethics," Tom Donaldson largues that ethical languages focusing on avoidance of harm to human beings; on rights/duties: and on rules spelled out in a social contract are better for characterizing international corporate responsibility than languages promoting virtue; the mastering of the self; or the maximization of human welfare. While some of what Donaldson says about the strengths and weaknesses of individual theories is quite plausible and relatively noncontroversial, Donaldson does not, in my judgment, establish that the three theories he favors are indeed better equipped to cope with problems of corporate responsibility than the three he dismisses. I will focus upon four major problems with his analysis.
1 Thomas, Donaldson, “The Language of International Corporate Ethics,” Business Ethics Quarterly(July 1992), 271–282.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., 275-276.
3 Daryl, Koehn, “Toward an Ethic of Exchange,” in Business Ethics Quarterly (July 1992), 347–348Google Scholar.
4 Donaldson, 274.
5 Leo, Baeck, The Essence of Judaism (New York: Shocken Books, 1961), 191–195.Google Scholar
6 Adam, Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society (New York: The Free Press, 1992), 148–155Google Scholar.
7 Ibid.
8 Donaldson, 276.
9 Ibid., 279.
10 Immanuel, Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone (NY: Harper & Row, 1960), 90–91Google Scholar.
11 Donaldson, 277.
12 Ibid., 273.
13 Ramkrishna, Mukherjee, The East India Company(New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974), passimGoogle Scholar. The company eventually became a government unto itself with powers such as the ability to coin its own money in India. Brian, Gardner, The East India Company: A History (New York: McCall Publishing Company, 1971), 44Google Scholar.
