Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Agle, Bradley R. Author-Name: Donaldson, Thomas Author-Name: Freeman, R. Edward Author-Name: Jensen, Michael C. Author-Name: Mitchell, Ronald K. Author-Name: Wood, Donna J. Title: Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 153-190 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: A quick look at what is happening in the corporate world makes it clear that the stakeholder idea is alive, well, and flourishing; and the question now is not “if ” but “how” stakeholder theory will meet the challenges of its success. Does stakeholder theory’s “arrival” mean continued dynamism, refinement, and relevance, or stasis? How will superior stakeholder theory continue to develop? In light of these and related questions, the authors of these essays conducted an ongoing dialogue on the current state and future of stakeholder thinking. Beginning with a review of research and theory that has developed since the major stakeholder theorizing efforts of the 1990s, the authors individually offer their perspectives on the key issues relevant today to stakeholder thinking, and to suggest possible approaches that might lead toward and enable the continuing development of superior stakeholder theory. File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010927/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:153-190_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Bishop, John Douglas Title: For-Profit Corporations in a Just Society: A Social Contract Argument Concerning the Rights and Responsibilities of Corporations Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 191-212 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: This article develops contractarian business ethics by applying social contract arguments to a specific question: What are the pre-legal (or moral) rights and responsibilities of corporations? The argument uses a hypothetical social contract to show the existence of for-profit corporations in democratic capitalist societies is consistent with Rawls’s fundamental principles of justice. Corporations ought to have recognised their rights to be autonomous, to pursue private purposes, and to engage in economic activities. Corporations have a responsibility to respect the freedom and human rights of all people, and not to interfere with government programs that ensure people have the education and training they need to find and keep corporate employment and that provide a safety-net that prevents destitution. If corporations have any other rights and responsibilities, those rights and responsibilities need to be established by actual social contracts, probably in the form of legitimate democratic processes. File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010939/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:191-212_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Sandberg, Joakim Title: Understanding the Separation Thesis Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 213-232 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: 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 semantic, empirical and reformative to some which are straightforwardly normative. While it is generally agreed that the separation thesis should be rejected, then, there is not as much agreement on what this thesis actually says. I suggest that whether or not we should reject the separation thesis, however, ultimately must depend on how we understand it more exactly—on certain interpretations, the thesis comes out as more or less trivially false, but we should demand more evidence or argument to reject it on certain other interpretations. This result presents a challenge for all those writers who are committed to the rejection of the separation thesis. File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010940/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:213-232_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Treviño, Linda Klebe Author-Name: Weaver, Gary R. Author-Name: Brown, Michael E. Title: It’s Lovely at the Top: Hierarchical Levels, Identities, and Perceptions of Organizational Ethics Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 233-252 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: Senior managers are important to the successful management of ethics in organizations. Therefore, their perceptions of organizational ethics are important. In this study, we propose that senior managers are likely to have a more positive perception of organizational ethics than lower level employees do largely because of their managerial role and their corresponding identification with the organization and need to protect the organization’s image as well as their own identity. By contrast, lower level employees are more likely to be cynical about the organization’s ethics. In order to compare senior managers’ and lower level employees’ perceptions of ethics in the organization, we surveyed randomly selected senior managers and lower level employees in three firms. We found that perceptions of ethics in the organization differed predictably across levels, with senior managers’ perceptions being significantly more positive and lower level employees’ perceptions being more negative. Implications for practice and research are discussed. File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010952/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:233-252_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Hartman, Edwin M. Title: Reconciliation in Business Ethics: Some Advice from Aristotle Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 253-265 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: It may be nearly impossible to use standard principles to make a decision about a complex ethical case. The best decision, say virtue ethicists in the Aristotelian tradition, is often one that is made by a person of good character who knows the salient facts of the case and can frame the situation appropriately. In this respect ethical decisions and strategic decisions are similar. Rationality plays a role in good ethical decision-making, but virtue ethicists emphasize the importance of intuitions and emotions as well.Virtue ethics suggests a reconciliation of the factual and the normative. Virtues may explain as well as justify actions. The same is true of other psychological states and events. That psychological terms have normative implications does not render them useless in explanation. As Aristotle does not distinguish cleanly between the normative and empirical, so many moral philosophers today reject the is-ought dichotomy. They are prepared to learn from economists, psychologists, and other empirical scientists who offer information about the nature of the good life and of values. Social psychologists who study community or corporate culture suggest a close relationship between organizational and ethical features, much as Aristotle saw a close relationship between politics and ethics. We should infer from all this that in business ethics there is good reason for philosophers and organization scholars to work closely together. File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010964/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:253-265_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Collins, Denis Title: Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity, by William J. Baumol, Robert E. Litan, and Carl J. Schramm. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007, 336 pages, $30.00 hardcover; ISBN 978-0-300-10941-2 Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 267-271 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010976/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:267-271_01 Template-type: ReDIF-Article 1.0 Author-Name: Padgett, Barry L. Title: Making Good: How Young People Cope with Moral Dilemmas at Work, by Wendy Fischman, Becca Solomon, Deborah Greenspan, and Howard Gardner. Harvard University Press, 2004. Journal: Business Ethics Quarterly Pages: 271-281 Issue: 2 Volume: 18 Year: 2008 Month: April Abstract: File-URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00013051/type/journal_article File-Function: link to article abstract page File-Format: text/html Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:271-281_01