Test environment running 7.6.6

Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

What's Wrong With Business Ethics

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Rodin, David

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Abstract

The field of business ethics is trapped between two competing and flawed conceptions of corporate responsibility. On the one hand is the shareholder value model, championed by Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman, which claims that corporations owe positive moral obligations only to their shareholders. On the other hand is the normative stakeholder theory, which claims that corporations are morally obliged to secure the interests of a broad range of groups, of which share-holders are only one. In this paper I will argue that if it is to generate a viable account of corporate moral responsibility, business ethics will need to abandon both canonical approaches and adopt a new approach based on a more concrete conception of the business corporation. At the end of the paper I sketch what such a theoretical approach would look like. The argument is not only relevant to business ethics; it also has important consequences for Michael Porter's influential approach to competitive strategy.

Description

Citation

Source

International Social Science Journal

Book Title

Entity type

Access Statement

License Rights

DOI

Restricted until

2037-12-31