Journal of Business Ethics 150 (3):657-670 (2018)

In his 2007 Ethics article, “Responsibility Incorporated,” Philip Pettit argued that corporations qualify as morally responsible agents because they possess autonomy, normative judgment, and the capacity for self-control. Although there is ongoing debate over whether corporations have these capacities, both proponents and opponents of corporate moral agency appear to agree that Pettit correctly identified the requirements for moral agency. In this article, I do not take issue with either the claim that autonomy, normative judgment, and self-control are the requirements for moral agency or the claim that corporations possess them. I claim that if both of these claims are correct, then corporate moral agency entails that, in a liberal democracy, corporations should have the right to vote. I show that under the conception of democracy supported by most liberal political theorists, all parties subject to the law are entitled to the right to vote, and all parties that possess autonomy, normative judgment, and self-control are subject to the law. Therefore, if the proponents of corporate moral agency are correct, then corporations satisfy the requirements for the right to vote. I then consider potential objections to this argument. I show that the strongest objection to the corporate right to vote is undermined by Pettit’s own argument for corporate autonomy. I then show that objections derived from other arguments for limiting the rights of corporations are equally unavailing. I conclude with some observations about the implications of my argument for the question of corporate speech rights.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10551-016-3172-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,214
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Inclusion and Democracy.Iris Marion Young - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Democratic Theory and Border Coercion.Arash Abizadeh - 2008 - Political Theory 36 (1):37-65.
Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and its Alternatives.Robert E. Goodin - 2007 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1):40–68.

View all 46 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Can a Corporation Be Worthy of Moral Consideration?Kenneth Silver - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics 159 (1):253-265.
CSR - the Cuckoo’s Egg in the Business Ethics Nest.Matthias P. Hühn - 2018 - Humanistic Management Journal 3 (2):279-298.
Corporations and Voting.John Hasnas - 2018 - Business Ethics Journal Review 6 (7):36-40.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Do I Think Corporations Should Be Able to Vote Now?Kenneth Silver - 2018 - Business Ethics Journal Review 6 (4):18-23.
Does Corporate Moral Agency Entail Corporate Freedom of Speech?John Hasnas - 2017 - Social Theory and Practice 43 (3):589-612.
Corporate Moral Responsibility.Amy J. Sepinwall - 2016 - Philosophy Compass 11 (1):3-13.
How Autonomy Alone Debunks Corporate Moral Agency.David Rönnegard - 2013 - Business and Professional Ethics Journal 32 (1-2):77-107.
Can a Corporation Be Worthy of Moral Consideration?Kenneth Silver - 2019 - Journal of Business Ethics 159 (1):253-265.
The Free Will of Corporations.Kendy M. Hess - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 168 (1):241-260.
Do Corporations Have Moral Rights?David T. Ozar - 1985 - Journal of Business Ethics 4 (4):277 - 281.
A Political Account of Corporate Moral Responsibility.Jeffery Smith - 2011 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):223 - 246.
Corporate Versus Individual Moral Responsibility.C. Soares - 2003 - Journal of Business Ethics 46 (2):143 - 150.
Corporations and Non‐Agential Moral Responsibility.James Dempsey - 2013 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (4):334-350.


Added to PP index

Total views
37 ( #307,227 of 2,507,636 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,530 of 2,507,636 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes