Search

We examine Van Wynsberghe and Robbins (JAMA 25:719-735, 2019) critique of the need for Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs) and its rebuttal by Formosa and Ryan (JAMA 10.1007/s00146-020-01089-6, 2020) set against a neo-Aristotelian ethical background. Neither Van Wynsberghe and Robbins (JAMA 25:719-735, 2019) essay nor Formosa and Ryan’s (JAMA 10.1007/s00146-020-01089-6, 2020) is explicitly framed within the teachings of a specific ethical school. The former appeals to the lack of “both empirical and intuitive support” (Van Wynsberghe and Robbins 2019, p. 721) for AMAs, and the latter opts for “argumentative breadth over depth”, meaning to provide “the essential groundwork for making an all things considered judgment regarding the moral case for building AMAs” (Formosa and Ryan 2019, pp. 1–2). Although this strategy may benefit their acceptability, it may also detract from their ethical rootedness, coherence, and persuasiveness, characteristics often associated with consolidated ethical traditions. Neo-Aristotelian ethics, backed by a distinctive philosophical anthropology and worldview, is summoned to fill this gap as a standard to test these two opposing claims. It provides a substantive account of moral agency through the theory of voluntary action; it explains how voluntary action is tied to intelligent and autonomous human life; and it distinguishes machine operations from voluntary actions through the categories of poiesis and praxis respectively. This standpoint reveals that while Van Wynsberghe and Robbins may be right in rejecting the need for AMAs, there are deeper, more fundamental reasons. In addition, despite disagreeing with Formosa and Ryan’s defense of AMAs, their call for a more nuanced and context-dependent approach, similar to neo-Aristotelian practical wisdom, becomes expedient.

In recent years, business ethics and economic scholars have been paying greater attention to the development of commons organizing. The latter refers to the processes by which communities of people work in common in the pursuit of the common good. In turn, this promotes commons organizational designs based on collective forms of common goods production, distribution, management and ownership. In this paper, we build on two main literature streams: (1) the ethical approach based on the theory of the common good of the firm in virtue ethics and (2) the economic approach based on the theory of institutions for collective action developed by Ostrom’s research on common-pool resources to avert the tragedy of the commons. The latter expands to include the novel concepts of new commons, “commoning” and polycentric governance. Drawing on the analysis of what is new in these forms of organizing, we propose a comprehensive model, highlighting the integration of two sets of organizing principles—common good and collective action – and five problem-solving processes to explain the main dimensions of commons organizing. We contribute to business ethics literature by exploring the convergence between the ethical and economic approaches in the development of a commons organizing view.

Not only individuals and firms, but also families engage in business as a social activity and this is true beyond the case of family businesses. Cultural differences in the way families are construed might influence the way they do business. There are different types of families, and among these are those described by Aristotelian and Confucian traditions, representing the West and the East respectively. The literature on virtue in business has been dominated by a Western—mainly Aristotelian—tradition (Ferrero and Sison in Bus Ethics Eur Rev 30(1): 8–24, 2014), neglecting the role of the family and focusing on the individual. In this paper, we seek to fill this gap by explaining differences and similarities in the normative evaluation of certain family-related business attitudes and practices, in light of Confucian and Aristotelian virtue ethics standards. After comparing the structure, organization and dynamics of Aristotelian and Confucian families, we shall draw some inferences regarding “virtuous” or excellent business practices—such as nepotism, bribery, gift-giving and guanxi and attitudes—on codified rules or written norms. For this analysis we shall make use of Aristotelian and Confucian ethical accounts as well as inputs from Family Science applied to organizations, which provides conceptual categories to compare the two traditions. Thus we hope to contribute not only to the comparative study of Aristotelian and Confucian virtue ethics in business, but also to the understanding of the distinctive role of families, raising cultural awareness for what may be considered virtuous business practices according to the Aristotelian and Confucian traditions.

In this article, we shall attempt to lay down the parameters within which the practice of the virtues may be enabled in the field of finance. We shall be drawing from the three main sources, Aristotle, Catholic Social Teaching (CST) and MacIntyre, on which virtue ethics is based. The research question is what ought to be done for financial activities to truly contribute to eudaimonia or human flourishing (Aristotle), to the achievement of three distinct kinds of goods as required of virtue, “those internal to practices, those which are the goods of an individual life and those which are the goods of the community” (MacIntyre), and to “[help] man on the path of salvation” in the midst of complex network of relationships in modern societies (CST). These parameters could then be taken as conditions financiers ought to fulfill in order to live the virtues in their work and across different life spheres.

What contributions could we expect from Catholic Social Teaching (CST) on human dignity in relation to the dignity of work? This article begins with an explanation of CST and its relevance for secular audiences. It then proceeds to identify the main features of human dignity based on the notion of imago Dei in CST. Next comes an analysis of the dignity of work in CST from which two normative principles are derived: the precedence of duties over rights and the priority of the subjective dimension of work over the objective dimension. Afterwards, the “right to work” and the “rights of workers” are engaged with from this normative perspective, particularly within the context of globalization.

This paper introduces ‘Virtue and Virtuousness: When will the twain ever meet?’ a special edition of 'Business Ethics: A European Review'. The Call for Papers invited contributions that could inform the relationship between organisational virtuousness, as conceptualised by positive organisation studies, and the classical conception of virtues pertaining to individual women and men. Whilst the resources of particular virtue traditions - Aristotelian, Catholic, Confucian and the like - could inform their own debates as to whether virtue extends beyond individuals, the debate between virtue traditions and Positive Organisation Studies has a different dimension. The question is whether the claims of positive social sciences as such are compatible with those of any virtue tradition. We argue that positive social science and virtue traditions are indeed rivals such that adherence to the claims of the one precludes adherence to the other. Resolution to such conflicts requires that one tradition is able to resolve questions that exhaust the resources of the other. This paper suggests that at least one area of incoherence in the findings of positive social sciences can be resolved by virtue traditions and introduces the remaining papers in the Special Edition.

Virtue ethics is generally recognized as one of the three major schools of ethics, but is often waylaid by utilitarianism and deontology in business and management literature. EBSCO and ABI databases were used to look for articles in the Journal of Citation Reports publications between 1980 and 2011 containing the keywords ‘virtue ethics’, ‘virtue theory’, or ‘virtuousness’ in the abstract and ‘business’ or ‘management’ in the text. The search was refined to draw lists of the most prolific authors, the most cited authors, the most cited articles, and the journals with the most virtue ethics publications. This information allows one to chart how virtue ethics articles have evolved through the decades and to establish ‘schools’ or clusters of authors as well as clusters of themes. The results of this quantitative analysis of authors, ‘schools’, themes, and publications provide a foundation for the future study of virtue ethics in business and management, identifying its achievements and potentials.

In recent years, scholars in business ethics, management and organizational studies have paid increasing attention to ‘the language of the commons.’ In this paper, we build on the two main foundati...

In a previous essay (Sison and Fontrodona 2012), we defined the common good of the firm as collaborative work, insofar as it provides, first, an opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, virtues, and meaning (work as praxis), and second, inasmuch as it produces goods and services to satisfy society’s needs and wants (work as poiesis). We would now like to focus on the participatory aspect of this common good. To do so, we will have to identify the different members of the firm as a community, drawing from corporate citizenship literature and stakeholder theory. Afterward, we will explore both the manner and the intensity of these different members’ participation and its impact on the firm’s common good.

Transparency in business and society is one of the challenges raised in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate by Benedict XVI. This paper focuses on the issue by extending the literature on business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and corporate transparency in two dimensions. First, it reviews the understanding and framing of the transparency issue in Caritas in Veritate and in a selection of relevant Catholic Social Teaching (CST) publications. Second, this paper provides normative indications for corporate transparency decisions which reflect four permanent principles of CST, that is, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, and respect for the human being. Inasmuch as human beings are worthy of love for their own sakes, the dimension of gift should always be present in relationships among them. This paper also provides insights for further studies on corporate transparency and the impact of religion on business ethics and corporate social responsibility.

Caritas in Veritate (CV) poses a challenge to the business community when it asks for “a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise” (CV 40). The paper proposes the concept of the “common good” as a starting point for the discussion and sketches a definition of the common good of business as the path toward an answer for this challenge. Building on the distinction between the material and the formal parts of the common good, the authors characterize profit as the material part of the common good of business and work as the formal part that expresses the essential significance of business.

After defining the essential elements of Aristotelian citizenship, the article proposes to apply these criteria in its search for the equivalent of a citizen within the corporate polis. It argues that shareholding managers are the best positioned among a firm’s constituents or stakeholders in fulfilling the role of corporate citizens. Greater participation by management not only in the control but also in the ownership of firms brings about benefits for the firm as a whole and for the managers themselves, as organizational citizenship behavior literature, among others, suggests.

The paper is the introduction to a selection of papers submitted to the EBEN 25th Annual Conference which took place at IESE Business School in Barcelona from September 20 to 22, 2012. The text presents the rationale behind the program of the Conference, and summarizes the content of the selected papers.

Recent years have witnessed an increasing interest in virtueethics and its application to business (Hartman 2006, 2008;Koehn 1995, 1998; Solomon 1992, 1993, 2003; Whestone2001). ‘‘Virtue ethics’’—as opposed to utilitarian andconsequentialist ethics, on the one hand, and deontologicalethics, on the other—puts special emphasis on the devel-opment of moral character. This makes virtue ethics anexcellent platform from which to analyze various aspectsof human action, professional work, and business activity.Some authors have focused on the individual level,showing how virtue ethics can provide insight into howmanagers behave and make decisions (Arjoon 2010; Bas-tons 2008; Bertland 2009; Jennings 1991; Parkan 2008;Provis 2010; Whetstone 2003). In fact, through their work,human beings not only produce goods and services butalso, and more importantly, develop a series of abilities andcompetences that shape their personalities. Human beingsnot only transform their environment through their workbut they also transform themselves.Most people undertake their professional activity in abusiness context. Goods and services offered by businessesare produced through the joint effort of people workingtogether. Businesses create environments that can eitherfavor or hinder the personal development of workers. Forthose reasons, other authors have chosen to write on virtueson the organizational level (Drake and Schlachter 2008;Dyck and Wong 2010; Moore 2005a, b; Sandin 2009).Third, through their products and services, businessesmake an impact on society. People in business should askthemselves how their work and their products or servicescontribute to building better societies and better citizens.Some products are clearly dangerous to people and socie-ties; other products are controversial at the least; but mostof them have a positive impact, although in variousdegrees. Hence, virtues may also be considered relevant fortheir bearing on communities and societies as a whole(Gonza´lez 2003; Graafland 2010; Wells and Graafland2012).In summary, virtue ethics provides managers and busi-ness leaders with an opportunity to ask themselves whatkind of people they become through their actions and howtheir decisions impact the lives of others. It gives them achance to consider what kind of business environments andcultures they should build, how business goals, policies andprocedures foster positive or negative learning in theiremployees and what kind of societies they contribute todeveloping through their operations and the products andservices they offer.Virtue ethics is not only a theoretical approach thatmakes for interesting comparison with other ethical theo-ries (Arjoon 2008; Chan 2008; Everett et al. 2006; Heugens

Significant research has demonstrated that virtues relate to organizational flourishing and employee well-being. In this symposium, we will explore several theoretical questions about this research...

The plurality of languages and ethnicities, the geographic fragmentation, the predominant Roman Catholic religion, together with the still relatively short experience in nationhood account for a very peculiar understanding of "business ethics" in the Philippines. The rapid growth and liberalization of the economy, coupled with the inequitable distribution of wealth, the destruction of the environment and corruption are the main ethical concerns. Businesspersons and the academe endeavor to find creative solutions for these unique challenges.

There are many perspectives from which the reality of work can be viewed. As a mere occupation, it may be understood as an activity in which we engage during the greater part of our waking hours, apart from the time we spend attending to our biological needs. As employment, it seems to refer to some formal relationship or contract in which we agree to produce some goods or perform certain services in exchange for pay and other economic incentives. It could also be thought of as a career in which we compete against ourselves or our peers in an attempt to reach ever more lofty goals that pro-vide us with great psychological satisfaction. But likewise, work may be conceived as a profession, as a personal response to a wider social calling, as an invitation to serve others. This has always been the dimension of work that has interested business ethics scholars and practitioners the most. This special issue of the Journal of Business Ethics comprises selected papers from the 21st Annual Conference of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN) held in Antalya, Turkey, 17–19 October, 2008. The Antalya conference was a memorable event, held in a well-known Mediterranean tourist destination. The theme of the conference was “Professional Ethics in Business and