The main purpose of this paper is to defend traditional ethical theory (utilitarianism and deontology) for its application in business against a more recent model consisting of utility, rights, and justice. This is done in three parts: First, we provide a conceptual argument for the superiority of the traditional model; second, we demonstrate these points through an examination of three short cases; and third, we argue for the capability of the traditional model to account for universais and particulars in ethics.

The Inuit in Alaska speak eloquently of their “rights” to be granted larger quotas for whale hunting, so that they might compete more fairly with Japanese business interests. The Jari Corporation in the Amazonia in Brazil, struggles to cut trees in the rain forest and provide employment, in a sustainable way, without importing exotic species and without exploiting all the land they own. Yet they still use chlorine in their manufacturing operation, and still need to cope with the problems the previous management left for them. In the Great Lakes Basin, the U.S./Canada Joint Commission demands a chlorine ban for the Basin, citing abundant scientific evidence about habitat and wild-life devastation in the area, as well as mounting evidence of a link between chlorine in water and breast cancer. The meeting is attended by thousands of citizens supporting the ban, but the industry’s representatives protest the “emotionalism” of the presentations, and counter it with the so-called “hard facts”: veiled threats of unemployment and higher prices, due to a “premature ban.”

This special issue of the BEQ focuses upon the convergence of two of the major challenges facing business organizations in our decade: ethics and leadership. Not all problems of business ethics are questions of leadership and not all of the issues of organizational effectiveness that have placed leadership and leadership development high on the agenda are matters of ethics, but the overlap is great.

Social contract is rapidly becoming one of the significant alternatives for analyzing ethical issues in business. Contractarian approaches emphasizing consent as a means of justifying principles can provide needed context for rendering normative judgements concerning economic behaviors. Current research issues include developing tests of consent for both hypothetical and extant social contracts, and empirically testing the assumptions of the major contractarian approaches. Open questions include exploring the relationship between contractarian business ethics and other approaches, such as stakeholder management and virtue based ethics; and analysis of the intersection of contractarian approaches with the findings and assumptions of the field of moral psychology. Finally, the managerial utility of social contract based approaches needs to be explored with emphasis on identifying “translator” concepts.

Our critics confuse the role normative ethical theory can take in business ethics. We argue that as a practical discipline, business ethics must focus on norms, not the theories from which the norms derive. It is true that our original work is defective, but not in its form, but in its neglect of contemporary advances in feminist ethics.

Contemporary society faces a wide range of environmental problems. In what ways might business be part of the solution, rather than the problem? The Moralist Model is one general response. It tends to focus on particular corporations which it treats as moral agents operating within our common moral system. As a consequence, it claims that, with various (usually modest) changes, corporations may become environmentally responsible.

This paper contends, on the contrary, that business has its own special “ethics,” which relates not simply to the internal nature of the corporation but also to the corporate (free market) system. Given this special ethics, business cannot in general be environmentally responsible in the manner that the Moralists demand. Instead, more far-reaching changes are needed within corporations and the economic system to promote environmental responsibility. Though the requisite changes are significant, there are forces pushing in the direction which the paper identifies.

In this paper I argue that a greater understanding of the part of ethics in leadership will improve leadership studies. Debates over the definition of leadership are really debates over what researchers think constitutes good leadership. The ultimate question is not “What is leadership?” but “What is good leadership?” The word good is refers to both ethics and competence. Research into leadership ethics would explore the ethical issues of current leadership research, serve as a critical study of the field, analyze and expand normative theories of leadership, and develop new theories, research questions and ways of thinking about leadership.

In this paper we explore challenges facing leadership in a culture of “all consuming images” from a perspective which claims that images have a moral or normative dimension. The cumulative effect of contemporary image saturation is increased resistance to the normative power of an image. We also suggest that in a culturally diverse global economy, it is necessary to expand the moral aspects of good business leadership beyond providing a basis for productive, coherent group identity within a firm at the expense of seeing outsiders as “others.” We also explore what imagining leadership in business might be like in a world in which visual images shape our understandings of individual and group identity. While our focus is on leadership in business, we also use examples from the political arena. We also suggest that imagining business leadership in the ways we propose may be helpful to women, providing them with an image of business leadership more closely reflective of their experience of corporate culture, its limits, and possibilities.

In order to understand the nature of ethical evaluation as promoted by ethical codes and as practiced by ethicists, we need to understand the notions of rationality and judgment in terms of which codes are developed and ethical pronouncements are made. Although this paper focuses on what might be called “professional contexts” of ethical evaluation, the proposed view of rationality and judgment is argued to be common to all defensible ethical judgments. The paper begins by examining a classical interpretation of rationality which asserts that rational judgments are universal, necessary, and rule-guided. This is contrasted with a more robust and arguably superior view of rationality articulated by Norman Brown. Brown argues that rational judgments are neither universal, necessary, nor rule-guided. This non-classical view implies that ethical judgments are rational and can be justified in the same way that judgments in law and medicine can be justified. However, if ethics is not a matter of following rules, the very possibility of ethical codes is in doubt. A brief survey of some standard objections to ethical codes shows that they often tacitly rely on the non-classical sense of rationality to show that ethical codes are defective in the way just described: that is, as instruments designed to promote rote, non-rational behavior, codes cannot promote the rational responses that form the core of ethical behavior. However, a closer look at ethical codes reveals that they are not sets of rules. On the contrary, many codes are designed to promote the very kind of non-classical rational judgment that critics argue codes cannot promote. As a result, many of the standard objections to codes are misguided. Yet, this analysis does not suggest that codes are problem free, but rather that their problems are different from what has been traditionally thought. One apparent problem of this analysis is that the similarity of ethical reasoning to legal and medical reasoning suggests that there are ethical experts just as there are legal and medical experts. Although the notion of ethical expertise is one that is thought to be elitist and oppressive, I argue that there is a defensible analysis of ethical expertise that is fundamentally egalitarian. Finally, some ramifications of this analysis are suggested for organizational ethical codes and the practice of business ethics consulting. It is suggested that organizations can play a crucial role in solving some of the most pressing social problems we have, such as those concerning race and gender.

In this paper we present six criteria for assessing proposed solutions to environmental risk problems. To assess the final criterion—the criterion of ethical responsibility—we suggest another series of criteria. However, before these criteria can be used to address ethical problems, business persons must be willing to discuss the problem in ethical terms. Yet many decision makers are unwilling to do so. Drawing on research by James Waters and Frederick Bird, we discuss this “moral muteness”—the inability or unwillingness to use moral language to solve moral problems—and suggest some underlying causes of moral muteness.

This article evaluates the social contract theorizing of Professors Thomas Donaldson, Thomas Dunfee and Michael Keeley. This theorizing is tested with G.E. Moore’s concept of moral authority, with moral psychology, and by managerial utility. Both strengths and weaknesses are found in the theories and the author concludes that while there is great potential, much work in theory development remains.

The debate about the differing philosophies of human-nature relationship is ongoing. Several studies discuss the need to develop and adopt a new environmental paradigm to replace the neoclassical economic paradigm predominant in Western societies. This issue has been discussed mainly at a societal level. Society or societies are, however, entities that consist of smaller particles. If a phenomenon is supposed to exist in an entity, signs of the phenomenon should also be found in its particles, business enterprises among others. This paper examines a shift of a managerial paradigm in a business organization, since not only the actions of individuals and governments but also those of business enterprises account for the preservation of the natural environment. It studies empirically how a managerial paradigm can shift from “traditional managerial thinking” to “environment-related management.” Two frameworks will be developed for this purpose.

This paper suggests that different styles of leadership arouse different sorts of normative motivation among followers, and these diverse motivational sources in turn are associated with different forms of participant contribution to organizational success. Three interrelated clusters of leadership styles, normative motivation of followers, and organizational citizenship behavior are described. Leadership that appeals exclusively to followers’ self-interests is associated with preconventional moral development and dependable task performance. Leadership styles focusing on interpersonal relationships and social networks are associated with followers’ conventional moral development and work group collaboration. Transforming leadership that both models and nurtures servant leadership abilities is associated with post-conventional moral development and responsible participation in organizational governance.

This paper develops a framework for examining decision making about ethical issues and tests the applicability of a social contract perspective. Using two separate samples of students and salespeople, we determine that community members (salespeople) tend to judge a potentially unethical act to constitute a violation of an implicit social contract and non-community members (students) do not. Also, consistent with the emphasis on context specificity of integrative social contracts theory, situational variables influence perceptions of ethicality for the community members, but do not affect the perceptions of individuals outside the community. The study finds considerable support for the use of a social contractarian perspective in the study of decision-making processes about ethical issues.

In the second half of 1993, two articles — one then published and one as yet to be published — posed challenges to my presuppositions about the nature of business ethics. The first of these was Andrew Stark’s “What’s the Matter with Business Ethics?” This article is now well-known in business ethics circles with many being highly critical of its philosophical content and Stark already having had some opportunity to reply to these critics. According to him, business ethics as it has developed in the literature and in academia is irrelevant to most practicing managers since what has been produced in the academy is too general, too theoretical and too impractical. No doubt there will be more said about and by Stark on whether academic business ethics can fit into the practical work world of corporate managers. For my part, I suggest that while Stark’s critique of business ethics contains some flawed understanding and analysis, it is a critique that nonetheless needs to be taken seriously by those who wish to see business ethics flourish in the corporation. I will have some more to say about Stark’s position later in this commentary.

Social contract theory has a rich history. It originated among the ancients with recognition that social arrangements were not products of nature but convention. It developed through the centuries as theorists sought ethical criteria for distinguishing good conventions from bad. The search for such ethical criteria continues in recent attempts to apply social contract theory to organizations. In this paper, I question the concept of consent as a viable ethical criterion, and I argue for an alternate principle of impartiality as a more appropriate moral norm in a social contract theory of organizations.

Leadership and followership are unified in an interdependent relationship exemplified by the idea of teamwork. Ethical concerns are among the valuational elements essential to developing loyalty and trust in this relationship. However, because of their need to maintain power and distance, self-serving leaders may become detached from how their actions are perceived and reacted to by followers. This pattern can be especially damaging to teamwork when leaders continue to receive disprortionate rewards despite their poor performance, especially when coupled with organizational downsizing and layoffs. Implications are drawn regarding the ethics of equity, responsibility, and accountability in the exercise of authority and power.

This paper concerns the influence of gender on a firm’s moral and economic performance. It supports Thomas White’s intimation of a male gender bias in the value system underlying extant business theory. We suggest that this gender bias may be corrected by drawing on the concept of substantive rationality inherent in virtue-ethics theory. This feminine-oriented relationship-based value system complements the essential nature of the firm as a nexus of relationships between stakeholders. Not only is this feminine firm morally desirable, but it is also economically more efficient in that trust becomes a more feasible implicit contractual enforcement mechanism. In an organizational context, therefore, from both a moral and an economic perspective, long established economic man is dominated by nascent economic woman.

The UNCED Earth Summit established two new principles of international justice: an equitable international order and protection of the environment. UNCED was a significant symbol, a morality play about environment and economics. Wealth is asymmetrically distributed; approximately one-fifth of the world (the G-7 nations) produces and consumes four-fifths of goods and services; four-fifths (the G-77 nations) get one-fifth. This distribution can be interpreted as both an earnings differential and as exploitation. Responses may require justice or charity, producing and sharing. Natural and national resources come into tension with the common heritage of humankind, exemplified in disputes about who owns biodiversity resources. Ethics has to learn planetary home economics.