Skip to main content
Log in

Modified vendettas as a method of punishing corporations

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

Abstract

Methods of punishing corporations have changed from self-regulation to economic sanctions by government as corporations have evolved from small groups of entrepreneurs to multinational entities. It is proposed that the next stage in the evolution of punishment methods is modified vendettas, or organized attempts by non-government groups to influence corporations through the application of economic and non-economic sanctions.

This paper develops the concept of modified vendettas as a complement to government-initiated economic sanctions. The effectiveness of modified vendettas is analyzed through two case examples. As with any punishment method, however, the usefulness of a modified vendetta depends not only on its effectiveness but also on how well it meets society's needs to monitor and check corporate activity while preserving corporations' rights to operate. To resolve this issue, modified vendettas are assessed using a philosophical framework incorporating both retributive and utilitarian principles. It is found that modified vendettas extend society's ability to control corporate behavior while corporations have legal and public relations means to protect themselves from frivolous use of the technique.

Did you ever expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no soul to be damned, and no body to be kicked?

(Baron Thurlow)

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Business Week, February 22, 1982. p. 60.

  • Buzzard, W.: 1978, ‘How the Union Got the Upper Hand on J. P. Stevens’,Fortune, (June 19) 86.

  • Donaldson, Thomas: 1982,Corporations and Morality, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, May 25, 1981. p. 116.

  • Fortune, December 27, 1982. p. 109.

  • Freeman, R. Edward: 1984,Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, Peter: 1984,Corporate and Social Responsibility, pp. 186–202.

  • Friedman, Milton: 1962,Capitalism and Freedom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, Alan: 1983, ‘Authority, Autonomy, and Institutional Norms’,Ethical and Policy Issues Perspectives on the Professions (March/June), Vol. 3, Nos. 1, 2.

  • Kant, Immanuel: 1797,Metaphysical Elements of Justice, trans. John Ladd (1965), New York: Bobbs- Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacks, K.: 1978, ‘How the Union Got the Upper Hand on J. P. Stevens’,Fortune (June 19), 86.

  • Lyons, David: 1984,Ethics and the Rule of Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, Larry: 1983, ‘Vicarious Agency and Corporate Responsibility’,Philosophical Studies 43, 69–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Science, February 10, 1984. p. 35.

  • Singer, Peter: 1979, ‘Rich and Poor’, inPractical Ethics (New York: Cambridge University Press), pp. 166–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Christopher: 1975,Where the Law Ends, New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Shannon Shipp is a Doctoral Candidate at the University of Minnesota. He is a Haring Fellow, and has published articles in Business Horizonsand Psychology and Marketing.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shipp, S. Modified vendettas as a method of punishing corporations. J Bus Ethics 6, 603–612 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705776

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705776

Keywords

Navigation