Ethical Theories in Business Ethics: A Critical Review
Abstract
Numerous ethical theories have been proposed as a foundation of business ethics, and this often brings about appreciable perplexity. This article seeks to identify specific problems for a sound foundation of this discipline. A first problem is this multiplicity of ethical theories, each with its own metaethics, often accepted without a serious discussion of their philosophical grounds. A second problem is the fragmentation of theories; some centred on duties or obligations, others on consequences, virtues, or moral sentiments. In addition, some theories focus on universal principles, while others take the singularity of each situation as their focal point. A third problem is that not every ethical theory covers the personal, organizational and societal dimensions of business ethics, and this introduces reductionism. These problems cannot be satisfactorily addressed through ‘ethical pluralism’, in which all theories are accepted, without falling into ethical relativism. ‘Ethical pragmatism’, which welcomes any ethical theory only on the basis of their practically, is also questioned. Furthermore, there is the problem of integrating ethics into business theory, which is often extrinsic to the economic function. After analysing these problems, the article concludes by exploring some proposals that might serve to build a sound and complete ethical theory which includes human goods (objective values), principles (or norms) and virtues. The necessity of reconsidering the human action for a closer integration of ethics into business theory is also suggested.
Introduction
Some 50 years ago business ethics was introduced as academic discipline in the context of the Business Ethics Movement (De George, 1987, 2006; Wicks, 1995; Werner, 1992). The theoretical development of business ethics can be found in both the normative (prescriptive) and the behavioural perspectives (descriptive). Certain experts in teaching the subject think that both aspects are relevant and should be combined (De los Reyes et al., 2017). Learning about real behaviours and practices in implementing business ethics, particularly good practices, is interesting, but a behavioural description does not reveal what is the right thing to do in any given circumstance; this is the task of normative ethics.
The development of normative business ethics has been accompanied by numerous ethical theories proposed as a foundation of the discipline. Generally, three groups are presented: deontological, consequentialist and virtue ethics, each with several different approaches, as will be discussed below. In addition to conventional ethical theories, there are two positions which are not considered here, but quite relevant in practice: nihilism, which denies ethics altogether, and moral relativism, which reduces ethics to subjective feelings (individual relativism) or social values (cultural relativism).
The variety of ethical theories and approaches is problematic for a sound foundation of business ethics because such diversity brings confusion and certain perplexity. In this sense, some time ago, Velasquez recognized that disputes on the very foundation of moral reasoning are ‘bound at the very least to leave the business manager confused, perplexed and frustrated’ (Velasquez, 2002, p. 106). The situation has not changed nowadays.
A critical review of ethical theories proposed as a foundation for business ethics can help us identify current problems in this bedrock and challenge us to seek a more solid base. To this end, the article reviews the historical evolution of ethical theories employed for business ethics since the late 1970s with a precise research question: What problems can be identified in the ethical theories proposed for business ethics that prevent an appropriate normative support to this discipline? This knowledge challenges us to seek new directions and a more reliable base for business ethics.
The article starts with a short overview of the context and inspirations of business ethics as academic discipline, as well as the first ethical theories employed in the field and those which followed. It continues by identifying three problems for a sound foundation of business ethics: the multiplicity of theories, the fragmentation in their focal point and the reductionism in their scope. Then it discusses two unsatisfactory attempts to overcome these problems; namely, ethical pluralism, which is accepting every ethical theory or combining some of them, and ethical pragmatism, focused on practicality rather than adherence to fixed ethical theory. Next, it deals with the integration of ethical theories, which are often extrinsic to business theory, into business. It concludes by affirming the necessity to explore new directions, suggesting some not always well-known proposals to overcome the current problems.
Origins and Developments of Business Ethics as Academic Discipline
Ethics in business has been supported since ancient times by religions and wisdom traditions (Barnes, 2018; De George, 1987; Mees, 2018). Courses and textbooks on ethics in business have existed since at least the beginning of the twentieth century (Abend, 2013). In one such book, Garret described ‘business ethics’ as an attempt to develop and apply basic principles in the area of human economic relations, involving those with groups as well as individuals (Garrett, 1963, p. 5). Despite these overtures, it was not until the mid-1970s that business ethics was developed as an academic discipline. De George defined the field of business ethics, in a broad sense, as ‘the interaction of ethics and business’ (1987, p. 204).
Previously, two academic and corporate movements had been introduced. One in the 1950s concerning the social responsibility of business and the other in the 1960s, which focused on social issues management, with many adherents within the Academy of Management Association. The development of bioethics at the beginning of the1970s, focused on controversial medical issues, patient rights and consumer rights, was also influential. A raft of notorious business scandals related to bribes and social demands related to civil rights, consumerism and pollution were significant in the enthusiasm shown for business ethics. This context may explain why the initial focus of the discipline was limited to evaluating the morality of controversial business issues and to solving ethical dilemmas on specific issues. The titles of the first books in business ethics are quite expressive: Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach (Donaldson & Werhane, 1979) and Moral Issues in Business (Barry, 1979).
The business ethics movement tried to give ethical content to social issues and to promote ethics within companies facing social pressure. One of the main concerns was to overcome the myth of the amorality of business (De George, 1982, pp. 5–7) and for companies to assume ‘ethical responsibility’ beyond economic and legal responsibility and accepting their philanthropic responsibilities, for example. In this regard, Carroll’s (1991) four-level pyramid of corporate responsibilities—the economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic—is paradigmatic. In this scheme ethical responsibilities are defined as ‘obligation to do what is right, just and fair’, in accordance with social expectations (Carroll, 1991, p. 42)
This approach, which has been quite influential, can be questioned on at least two grounds. One is that it treats ethical responsibilities separately, seeing these as having nothing to do with legal, economic and philanthropic responsibilities. The second objection is that it assumes that ethics do not come from normative ethical theories but from the expectations of society; this acceptance of ethical cultural relativism is a questionable position. What moral obligations would a company have in countries which tolerate pollution or have a lack of respect for human rights? Years later, Carroll corrected his own initial scheme, pointing out, among other things, that ethics actually permeate the pyramid. However, he maintains that ethical responsibilities respond to social expectations (Carroll, 2016).
Ethical theories also provided the necessary tools to evaluate ethical questions and to solve dilemmas in the analysis of moral issues. Some authors focused on individuals, but others saw the firm as an institution; this is the case of Donaldson (1982), who focused on the moral status and obligations of the corporation, and on certain issues of corporate morality, and Bowie (1982), who considered moral responsibility in actions, practices and institutions.
In the first 15 years of business ethics as a discipline, two principal dominant ethical theories were generally proposed, based respectively on moral duties and on balancing consequences, and both in the tradition of the philosophical modernity. Barry (1979) discussed deontology (duties) versus teleology (consequences); Bowie (1982) mentioned deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics; Velasquez (1982) presented utilitarianism, the theory of rights and a Rawlsian approach to justice; De George (1982) discussed utilitarianism, (Kantian) formalism, along with the theories of justice and rights. The strengths and weaknesses of each theory were often considered in the business ethics textbooks. Donaldson (1982), who proposed constructing a social contract for business, can be grouped within the deontological category. Later, Brady and Dunn (1995) argued in favour of utilitarianism and deontology against models consisting of utility, rights and justice. The presenting of different theories was defended by arguing that doing so provides an overarching framework, and ‘the framework is not supplied by any ethical theory—Kantian, utilitarian, or theological—but by the systematic interdependence of the questions, which can be approached from various philosophical, theological, or other points of view. (De George, 1987, pp. 204–205).
Soon, however, problems arose in applying different theories. Derry and Green (1989) presented an assessment of ethical theories in business ethics and discussed how these can be in tension or conflict with one another even in their application to specific issues, cases, or situations. The problem of dealing with such diversity became more complex when new ethical theories were proposed as a foundation for business ethics.
Theories of ethics based on principles, introduced by modern moral philosophy, were severely criticized in the second half of the twentieth century. Among other points, they were seen to ignore the psychological (personal) dimension of human action (Anscombe, 1958) or to show a lack of consideration of the moral character of the agent (virtues) (Foot, 1978; MacIntyre, 1981). These criticisms were generally ignored by the pioneers of business ethics. The relevance of virtues increased and a stream of thought in favour of virtue ethics theory, mainly in the Aristotelian tradition, emerged in different fields from the 1990s, and business ethics was not an exception (Hartman, 1996; Koehn, 1995; Solomon, 1992a, 1992b). Soon, influenced to a great extent by MacIntyre (Akgün et al., 2022), virtue ethics, which emphasized the crucial importance of moral character in business ethics, became a mainstream theory (Sison et al., 2017), although one in co-existence with deontologist and consequentialist theories.
The proposal of Feminist Ethics (Gilligan, 1982), later termed ‘Ethics of Care’ or ‘Care Ethics’, was also introduced in business ethics (Freeman & Liedtka, 1991), and has acquired relevance in the last two decades. Care ethics could be considered as a form of virtue ethics since it focuses on a moral attitude of the character regarding fundamental relationships and dependencies in human life. Other deontological approaches were also accepted. Among these, one by Donaldson and Dunfee (1994, 1999) termed ‘Integrative Social Contract Theory’, which was in the social contract tradition and became relatively popular in USA, and another known as ‘Discursive Ethics’, which was based on a dialogical process to determine morality (Beschorner, 2006) and mainly accepted in Continental Europe.
Since the mid-1990s business ethics textbooks have presented a variety of ethical theories. Ferrell and Fraedrich (1997) distinguished three moral philosophies in addition to the relativistic perspective: teleology (consequentialism), deontology and virtue ethics. Beauchamp and Bowie mentioned the prevalence of utilitarian theories and Kantian ethics in the 5th edition of their influential book Ethical Theory and Business (1997), but also noted Donagan’s common morality (shared by people in communal life), rights theories, virtue ethics, ethics of care and some insights on theories of justice. In the 10th edition of Ethical Theory and Business (Arnold et al., 2020), several theories are critically reviewed including ethical egoism, utilitarian theories, Kantian ethics, rights theory, virtue ethics, common morality theories and theories of justice.
Current Multiplicity, Fragmentation and Reductionism in Ethical Theories
In more recent textbooks and treaties of business ethics, the multiplicity of theories persists. The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics (Brenkert & Beauchamp, 2010), in discussing the place of ethical theory in business ethics, mentioned virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism and commonsense intuitionism (Audi, 2010) as major ethical theories. The Routledge Companion to Business Ethics (Heath et al, 2018), which is focused on moral philosophies and business, considers consequentialism, social contract theories, virtue ethics, feminist ethics and religious approaches. Griseri and Seppala (2010) critically analyse ethical egoism, subjectivism, cultural relativism, virtue ethics, deontological and consequentialist theories, Rawlsian justice and the theory of rights. Crane and Matten (2016, p. 121) describe up to nine ethical theories to be considered in decision-making: ethical egoism, utilitarianism, ethics of duty, ethics of right, theories of justice, virtue ethics, feminist ethics, discourse ethics and postmodern ethics. Rather than a theory, the latter is a set of theories, which share a common opposition to universalism (Gustafson, 2000).
Thus, in addition to the multiplicity of ethical theories there is great fragmentation in the focus of each one. Some are centred on principles to evaluate the action (Kantianism, Rawls’ theory of justice, theory of rights, dialogical ethics, ethical egoism), others on the consequences (utilitarianism and other consequentialisms), a third group on virtue ethics, and others on care and responsibility with specific issues or situations.
Another problem is a reductionist view of the scope of business ethics in some theories. A comprehensive business ethics theory embraces individual actions and organizational, institutional, societal and ecological aspects. Some authors have termed these micro-, meso- and macro-levels, as seminally presented by De George (1987, p. 204) and then by Goodpaster (1992), Enderle (1996) and many others. The problem does not apply to theories which cover these three levels, or at least some aspects of these, for example, social contract theories (Heugens et al., 2006), Kantianism (Bowie, 2017) and virtue ethics—if the notion of the common good (Sison et al., 2018) is consistently added, which is not always the case. However, many other theories are useful for making moral judgments but not for corporate governance or for managing business in society.
In practice, some authors reduce business ethics to evaluating ethically questionable business issues or consider that a certain theory is more appropriate than others for a particular case. These views may narrow business ethics. Shaw (1996), surveying models of business ethics in American universities in the mid-1990s, found three rival approaches. One, which he termed the ‘standard model’—basically theories for moral reasoning; a second was a ‘political model’, which considers the company as a political actor and the ‘virtue model which emphasizes the relevance of the moral traits of the character (virtues) in managing business. These three models are still popular, but their application can differ. Furthermore, some scholars defend the necessity of ethical theories as tools for moral reasoning, while others understand that business ethics should be understood as political philosophy with ethical content (Moriarty, 2005; Heath et al., 2010). Even today there are authors, such as Schwartz (2017), who reduce business ethics to decision-making.
Is ‘Ethical Pluralism’ or ‘Ethical Pragmatism’ the Solution?
Facing this multiplicity of theories, some authors simply reject ethical theories by considering that they do not meet the real needs of businesspeople (Pamental, 1991; Stark, 1993). Beauchamp and Bowie suggest that some ethical theories do not fit well with case studies. Then, they say, ‘cases not only provide data for theory but also act as the testing ground for business theories as well’ (Beauchamp & Bowie, 1997, p. 46). As an alternative, Cavanagh et al. (1995) argued that as a practical discipline, business ethics must focus on norms, not the theories from which the norms derive. Arnold et al. (2020, pp. 1–38), after discussing the limitations of conventional ethical theories, conclude by suggesting several stages for decision-making: getting to the facts, identifying the stakeholders, acting with integrity, considering consequences and finally reaching a sound decision.
Other scholars, however, defend a single theory (ethical monism). Thus, Elfstrom (1991) used a modified utilitarianism in dealing with issues in multinational corporations. Bowie, in 1999, produced a textbook on business ethics from a Kantian perspective, now in its second edition (Bowie, 2017). Moore (2018) followed MacIntyre’s approach on virtues, and also proposes a single theory. Likewise, Sison et al. (2018), who draw from Aristotelian virtue ethics and the Catholic social teaching tradition, and Melé (2020) who proposed business ethics based on philosophical personalism and virtue ethics.
A significant number of people, however, accept different ethical theories (ethical pluralism), arguing that each theory presents different perspectives (duties, consequences virtues, and others) on each issue or decision. In this regard, De George affirmed:
Business ethics is a field to the extent that it deals with a set of interrelated questions to be untangled and addressed within an overarching framework. The framework is not supplied by any ethical theory—Kantian, utilitarian, or theological—but by the systematic interdependence of the questions, which can be approached from various philosophical, theological, or other points of view. (1987, pp. 2004–2005)
Velasquez (2001) defended four irreducible kinds of moral principles—utilitarianism, moral rights, justice and caring—as meriting consideration in analysing the morality of particular issues.
Ethical pluralism presents itself as an attitude of open-mindedness to plurality; in reality, though, it is a form of relativism. In the early years of the business ethics movement Robert Solomon warned teachers of the subject about pluralism in ethics:
the message to students is too often an unabashed relativism (if you are a utilitarian, you’ll do this, if you’re a Kantian, you’ll do that)—but it is not even clear whether there is, then, anything distinctive about business ethics. There is just ethics, or rather ethical theory, whatever that may be. (Solomon, 1992a, p. 318)
According to ethical pluralism, no theory can aspire to be true, or, if you prefer, they may all be equally true, which is contrary to all logic. In addition, ethical pluralism gives unscrupulous managers the opportunity to choose whichever ethical theory will more conveniently justify their interests.
Defenders of ethical pluralism rightly realize that different theories take into account various relevant aspects of ethics (duties and obligations, consequences, moral character, and others) However, it is questionable that the solution is combining theories which rest upon a metaethics: that is, a set of epistemological, metaphysical and semantic presuppositions, and above all a philosophical anthropology which leads us to assume certain premises concerning the human person (Sayre-McCord, 2023).
Another way of considering all theories, even when there is no preference for any of them, is to choose what would be acceptable in practical terms; this is the position of ‘ethical pragmatism,’ which does not care about ethical foundations. Thus, Crane and Matten proposed combining different theories ‘with personal, cultural, psychological, cognitive, and context related factors for ethical decision-making’ (2016, p. 120). ‘Pragmatism sees the goal of inquiry as generating insights that help us to lead better lives’ (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 75).
Thus, ethical pragmatism focuses on practicality, rejecting any universal ethical principle or moral absolute. Actually, it denies the existence of moral truths: the only ‘truth’ is whatever will improve a given situation, which is quite vague. Ethical principles, rather than being permanent realities, are considered as social constructs to be evaluated in terms of usefulness in each historical context. As in science, where new experiments lead scientists to modify their hypotheses, moral judgments may change over time. This was the case, it is said, with the abolition of slavery. Moral inquiry and advocacy brought about better moral judgment about slavery. Nowadays, in a context of criticism of capitalism, pragmatists may say that any approach that might bring about more social justice and diminish suffering would be acceptable. Rather one can say, this would be welcome, but as ethical theory for business ethics is quite weak.
Several criticisms can be levelled against pragmatic ethics. First, there is its narrow focus on society, emphasizing individual or group interests, and like theories born of the Enlightenment tradition, it is strikingly incomplete. Second is the criterion of usefulness: it does not delve into the moral quality of any theory, or even the deeper reason for leading better lives. The use of ‘better’ is very imprecise and requires some solid reference point. Ethical theories, or at least some of them, can provide an answer, (Bowie, 2013, p. 86) but, as noted, pragmatism does not accept any moral absolute. Pragmatic ethicists defend objective positions with regard to social situations and object to moral subjectivism. However, their rejection of any moral truth inevitably converts this approach into a form of relativism.
The Integration of Ethics into Business Theory
An additional problem is the connection between ethical theory and business theory. Abela (2001) has distinguished three ways to do this, apart from a radical separation of ethics and business. One is that business decisions being informed by some kind of values. A second is by reaching informed business decisions through normative ethical principles. A third is by accepting that there is moral content already within the theory supporting any business decision. Only this latter approach entails an intrinsic integration of ethics in business.
The financial view of the firm assumes ethical egoism at the core of its business theory, but ethical egoism is quite questionable as a guide, since common morality sees egoism as precisely the opposite of ethics. The values of the manager can have an influence in decision-making, but they are not integrated into the business theory. Rationalist ethical theories go further; they can be integrated but only as a constraint on the economic function, in terms of avoiding misbehaviours, respecting recognized human rights or other ethical norms or principles. These are extrinsic connections of ethical with business theories.
In the last three decades, a new attempt to unite ethical and business theories has been made through stakeholder theory (Freeman et al., 2018), which has acquired popularity for management and corporate governance. This is a pragmatic approach which entails the application of an ethical theory to resolve conflicts of interests among stakeholders, but it does not matter which theory you might choose. According to Freeman (1994, p. 413), stakeholder theory ‘can be unpacked into a number of stakeholder theories, each of which has a “normative core,” inextricably linked to the way that corporations should be governed and the way that managers should act’. The normative core could be whichever ethical theory contributes to what the stakeholder approach tries to do: ‘creating as much wealth as possible for stakeholders, without resorting to trade-off’ (Freeman et al., 2010, p. 38). The connection between ethical theories and business is also extrinsic.
Developing an intrinsic connection of ethics and business theory is one of the greatest current challenges of management and business ethics scholars.
Conclusion
As discussed, the current situation of business ethics presents various problems. One is the multiplicity of ethical theories proposed, which posits the question of which, if any, is the correct one. The situation is even more complex if we enter a discussion of the metaethics underlying these theories. Another problem is the fragmentation of theories covering different aspects of ethical behaviour, including duties, virtues, values and concern for consequences. A third problem is the reductionist approach of some ethical theories, which fall short in covering the complexity of business ethics in its individual, organizational and societal levels. Related to this last problem, a critical point is how ethical theories can be integrated in the theory of business.
These problems challenge us to explore new directions to arrive at a sound foundation of business ethics. Of course, this requires further research, and it is not our aim to develop these directions in the short space of a conclusion. However, some insights can be suggested for future research.
In our view, one proposal worth exploration is that suggested by the Spanish philosopher Leonardo Polo, in which he defends a return to ethics in status nascendi (in the nascent stage), since ‘ethics arises because man must be the driver of his own existence’ (Polo, 1997, p. 63). This leads to the understanding of ethics as being focused on what is good, and virtues which make one good, rather than on the correctness of the action in accordance with some ethical principles or rules. However, moral evaluation of the action is primordial, because good actions lead one to human flourishing through virtues. Ethical principles are also relevant since good entails the moral imperative of acting accordingly. Thus, a complete ethics should include goods, norms, and virtues (Polo, 1997, p. 114)
A parallel view is that of MacIntyre (1992) in an article which is not often cited, where he argues that the starting point of moral reasoning for common people—those who are not influenced by philosophical training—is basically the question ‘What is my good?’ When ordinary people ask, ‘What is my good?’, they are asking about what they value—but they might be mistaken; they might later rethink whether and how much they value a thing. This leads to ‘the further, already philosophical question: “What in general is the good, for my kind of history in this kind of situation?” And that in turn will lead to a fundamental philosophical question: “What is the good as such for the human being as such?’” (MacIntyre, 1992, pp. 3–4) This is the crucial question, and it was posed by Aristotle and other Greek philosophers, who take eudaimonia or human flourishing as crucial reference for virtues. In this line of thought, Hartman (2020) has also suggested going back to Aristotle, ‘arriving where we started’, in the ethical reflection. This seems reasonable, but an optimal solution may not be one which casts aside all ethical development in more than 2,500 years, as well as interesting insights proposed by religions and wisdom traditions.
Like Polo, MacIntyre defends a complete ethics with goods, rules and virtues. As he puts it,
virtues, rules and goods…have to be understood in their interrelationship or not at all…Rules, conceived apart from virtues and goods, are not the same as rules conceived in dependence upon virtues and goods; and so it is also with virtues apart from rules and goods and goods apart from rules and virtues.’ (MacIntyre, 1992, p. 11, 13)
In other words, both Polo and MacIntyre suggest re-thinking ethics by going back to its original interpretation by the Socratic thinkers and, in this way, overcoming the diversity of theories. The proposal of interrelated virtues, rules or principles, and goods solves the problem of fragmentation on the focal point.
Another insight which might usefully be suggested is going back to a complete view of the human being, with his or her relational and social dimensions (see, e.g., Melé & González Canton, 2014). In this way, contributing to the common good is highly relevant for human flourishing (Sison et al., 2012) and, especially pertinent to our aim here, the common good provides a crucial reference to give moral legitimacy to social institutions (Melé & Armengou, 2016). The orientation towards the common good could be introduced as a principle within the ethical theory, covering its micro-, meso- and macro-levels, and in this manner the abovementioned problem of reductionism could be solved.
Achieving an intrinsic integration of ethics into business theory is more complex. Business theory and ethics should go together. This requires a business theory in which ethics is at its core. An attentive consideration of human action may help in discovering the intrinsic ethical dimension of each action, including in a business context. The common ground of ethics and business is human action, which consideration may be the key for an intrinsic integration of ethics into business.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Abela A. V. (2001). Adam Smith and the separation thesis. Business and Society Review, 106(3), 187–199.
Abend G. (2013). The origins of business ethics in American Universities, 1902–1936. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 171–205.
Akgün A. E., Keskin H., & Fidan S. S. (2022). The influence of Alasdair MacIntyre’s ‘After Virtue’ book on business ethics studies: A citation concept analysis. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 31(2), 453–473.
Anscombe E. (1958). Modern moral philosophy. Philosophy, 33, 1–19.
[Reproduced in Crisp R., & Slote M. (Ed.) (1997). Virtue ethics. Oxford University Press, 1997].
Arnold D. G., Beauchamp T. L., & Bowie N. E. (2020). Ethical theory and business (10th ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Audi R. (2010). The place of ethical theory in business ethics. In Brenkert G. G., & Beauchamp T. L. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business ethics (pp. 46–69). Oxford University Press.
Barnes K. J. (2018). Business ethics and religious belief. In Heath E., Kaldis B., & Marcoux A. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to business ethics (pp. 148–164). Routledge.
Barry V. (1979). Ethical issues in business. Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Beauchamp T. L., & Bowie N. E. (Eds.). (1997). Ethical theory and business (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Beschorner T. (2006). Ethical theory and business practices: The case of discourse ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 66(1), 127–139.
Bowie N. (1982). Business ethics (1st ed.). Prentice Hall.
Bowie N. E. (2017/1999). Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Bowie N. (2013). Business ethics in the 21st Century. Springer.
Brady F., & Dunn C. (1995). Business meta-ethics: An analysis of two theories. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 385–398.
Brenkert G. G., & Beauchamp T. L. (Eds.). (2010). The Oxford handbook of business ethics. Oxford University Press.
Carroll A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Towards the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons (July/August), 39–48.
Carroll A. B. (2016). Carroll’s pyramid of CSR: Taking another look. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 1(3),.
Cavanagh G. F., Moberg D. J., & Velasquez M. (1995). Making business ethics practical. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 399–418.
Crane A., & Matten D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
De George R. (1982). Business ethics. Macmillan.
De George R. T. (1987). The status of business ethics: Past and future. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(3), 201–211.
De George R. T. (2006). The history of business ethics. In Epstein M. J., & Hanson K. O. (Eds.), The accountable corporation. Business Ethics (Vol. 2, pp. 47–58). Praeger
De los Reyes G., Tae Wan K., & Weaver G. R. (2017). Teaching ethics in business schools: A conversation on disciplinary differences, academic provincialism, and the case for integrated pedagogy. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 314–336.
Derry R., & Green R. M. (1989). Ethical theory in business ethics: A critical assessment. Journal of Business Ethics, 8, 521–533.
Donaldson T. (1982). Corporations and morality. Prentice Hall.
Donaldson T., & Dunfee T. (1999). Ties that bind: A social contract approach to business ethics. Harvard Business School Press.
Donaldson T., & Dunfee T. W. (1994). Towards a unified conception of business ethics: Integrative social contracts theory. Academy of Management Review, 19(2), 252–284.
Donaldson T., & Werhane P. H. (Eds.). (1979). Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.
Elfstrom G. (1991). Moral issues and multinational corporations. Palgrave Macmillan.
Enderle G. (1996). Towards business ethics as an academic discipline. Business Ethics Quarterly, 6(1), 43–65.
Ferrell O. C., & Fraedrich J. (1997). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (3rd ed.). Houghton Mifflin.
Foot P. (1978). Virtues and vices and other essays in moral philosophy. University of California Press.
Freeman R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–429.
Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., & Wicks A. (2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation and success. Yale University Press.
Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., Wicks A. C., Parmar B. L., & de Colle S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., & Zyglidopoulos S. (2018). Stakeholder theory: Concepts and strategies. Cambridge University Press.
Freeman R. E., & Liedtka J. (1991). Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 92–99.
Garrett T. M. (1963). Ethics in business. Sheed and Ward.
Gilligan C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and woman development. Harvard University Press.
Goodpaster K. E. (1992). Business ethics. In Becker L. C., & Becker C. B. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of ethics (pp. 111–115). Garland Publishing.
Griseri P., & Seppala N. (2010). Business ethics & corporate social responsibility. Cengage Learning EMEA.
Gustafson A. (2000). Making sense of postmodern business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(3), 645–658.
Hartman E. M. (1996). Organizational ethics and the good life. Oxford University Press.
Hartman E. M. (2020). Arriving where we started: Aristotle and business ethics. Springer.
Heath E., Kaldis B., & Marcoux A. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge companion to business ethics. Routledge.
Heath J., Moriarty J., & Norman W. (2010). Business ethics and (or as) political philosophy. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3), 427–452.
Heugens P., Oosterhout J., & Kaptein M. (2006). Foundations and applications for contractualist business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 68(3), 211–228.
Koehn D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 5(3), 533–539.
MacIntyre A. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. University of Notre Dame Press.
MacIntyre A. (1992). Plain persons and moral philosophy: Rules, virtues and goods. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 66(1), 3–19.
Mees B. (2018). The history of business ethics. In Heath E., Kaldis B., & Marcoux A. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to business ethics (pp. 7–22). Routledge.
Melé D. (2020). Business ethics in action. Managing human excellence in organizations (2nd ed., revised and extended). Red Globe Press.
Melé D., & Armengou J. (2016). Moral legitimacy in controversial projects and its relationship with social license to operate: A case study. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(4), 729–742.
Melé D., & González Canton C. (2014). Human foundations of management. Understanding the ‘homo humanus.’ Palgrave-MacMillan.
Moore G. (2017). Virtue at work: Ethics for individuals, managers, and organizations. Oxford University Press.
Moriarty J. (2005). On the relevance of political philosophy to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 15(3), 455–473.
Pamental G. L. (1991). The course in business ethics: Why don’t the philosophers give business students what they need? Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(4), 385–393.
Polo L. (1997). Ética: hacia una versión moderna de los temas clásicos [Ethics. A modern version of its classics themes]. Madrid Unión Editorial.
Sayre-McCord G. (2023). Metaethics. In Zalta E. N., & Nodelman U. (Eds.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/metaethics/.
Schwartz M. S. (2017). Business ethics: An ethical decision-making approach. Willey.
Shaw W. H. (1996). Business ethics today. A survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(5), 489–500.
Sison A. J. G., Beabout G. R., & Ferrero I. (Eds.). (2017). Handbook of virtue ethics in business and management. Springer.
Sison A. J. G., Ferrero I., & Guitián G. (Eds.). (2018). Business ethics. A virtue ethics and common good approach. Routledge.
Sison A. J. G., Hartman E. M., & Fontrodona J. (2012). Reviving tradition: Virtue and the common good in business and management. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(2), 207–210.
Solomon R. C. (1992a). Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelian approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 317–339.
Solomon R. C. (1992b). Ethics and excellence. Cooperation and integrity in business. Oxford University Press.
Stark A. (1993). What’s the matter with business ethics? Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 38–48.
Velasquez M. (2002). Moral reasoning. In Bowie N. E. (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to business ethics (pp. 102–116). Blackwell.
Velasquez M. G. (1982). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (1st ed.). Prentice Hall.
Velasquez M. G. (2001). Business ethics: Concepts and cases (5th ed.). Prentice Hall.
Werner S. B. (1992). The movement for reforming American business ethics: A twenty-year perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 61–70.
Wicks A. C. (1995). The business ethics movement: Where are we headed and what can we learn from our colleagues in bioethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 5(3), 603–620.
Cite
Cite
Cite
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: November 20, 2023
Issue published: January 2024
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Publication usage*
Total views and downloads: 12773
*Publication usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Publications citing this one
Receive email alerts when this publication is cited
Web of Science: 4 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 8
- The Evolution of Virtue Ethics in Business: A Bibliometric and Systematic Literature Review
- Supply chain integrity: Addressing Ethical Concerns in Agricultural Supply Chains
- Communities for Clean Energy Justice and Equity in Grid Modernization
- Essential B2B Marketing Strategies
- Philosophical Foundations of Hospitality Ethics: Socratic, Platonic, and Aristotelian Perspectives
- Work Integration of People with Mental Disorders Through Social Enterprise: A Humanistic-Personalist Framework and Case Study
- The Humanistic Person-centered Company
- Quo Vadis Business Ethics?
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBAccess options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
