The past years have nurtured the hope that business ethics would become increasingly a field of application and research for management. This development was certainly spurred on by several international corporate scandals as well as the concern that false management theories might be held (jointly) responsible for such bad managerial praxis (cf. Ghoshal 2005 as well as Ghoshal/Moran 1996). In regard to the strategic aspects of business ethics, the 1980s saw the establishment of diverse fields of research in the Germanspeaking world. In broad terms, one can identify two major camps. The first practices a business ethics which, in certain circumstances, correctively intervenes in corporate strategy. For this reason, some speak here of a corrective business ethics (cf. e.g. Büscher 1995 and Ulrich 2004). Advocates of such an approach argue for a type of business ethics which can be traced back to the theories of Horst Steinmann. The second faction argues that ethics should be integrated into the economic paradigm. Advocates of this stance often face the critique that their approach is merely functional: that ethics is used as the “lubricant” for economics. For this reason such an approach is called functional business ethics (cf. e.g. Büscher 1995 and Ulrich 2004).
In the following paper, I would like to show (via a long-term and, in part, even evolutionary perspective) how both positions are in fact compatible. In simplified terms, and based on the current situation,2 one can in principle represent this as a two-stage process: In the first stage, economics is enriched with the functionalization of ethics. This then allows at least for an easier (though admittedly not effortless) implementation of a corrective (and extending up to an integrative) approach. Massive resistance from economists (as is still experienced today) should then no longer be expected. As such, we are dealing here, on the one hand, with a systematic or analytical compatibil- ity; but on the other hand, we have an evolutionary as well as a historical perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
APEL, K.-O.: “Diskursethik als Verantwortungsethik und das Problem der ökonomi- schen Rationalität“, in: B. BIERVERT, M. HELD, J. WIELAND (Eds.): Sozialphilosophische Grundlagen ökonomischen Handelns, Frankfurt (Suhrkamp) 1990, pp. 270-305.
APEL, K.-O.: “Institutionenethik oder Diskursethik als Verantwortungsethik? Das Problem der institutionellen Implementation moralischer Normen im Falle des Systems der Marktwirtschaft“, in: J. P. HARPES, W. KUHLMANN (Eds.): Zur Relevanz der Diskursethik. Anwendungsprobleme der Diskursethik in Wirtschaft und Politik, Münster et al. (LIT Pup.) 1997 (= Ethik und Wirtschaft im Dialog, Vol. 9), pp. 167-209.
BISHOP, J. D.: “Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand Argument”, Journal of Business Ethics, 3 (1995), pp. 165-180.
BREUER, M., BRINK, A., SCHUMANN, O.: Wirtschaftsethik als kritische Sozialwissenschaft, Bern et al. (Haupt) 2003.
BRINK, A., EURICH, J.: “Recognition Based upon the Vitality Criterion: A Key to Sustainable Economic Success”, Journal of Business Ethics, 2 (2006), pp. 155-164.
BRINK, A., TIBERIUS, V. A.: Ethisches Management: Der wert(e)orientierte Führungs-kräfte-Kodex, Bern et al. (Haupt) 2005.
BÜSCHER, M.: “Integrative Wirtschaftsethik: Grundkonzept und wirtschaftswissen-schaftliche Forschungshorizonte“, Die Unternehmung, 4 (1995), pp. 273-284.
CARROLL, A. B.: “The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the Moral Management of Organizational Stakeholders”, Business Horizons, 4 (1991), pp. 39-48.
CARROLL, A. B.: “Corporate Social Responsibility. Evolution of a Definitional Construct”, Business and Society, 3 (1999), pp. 268-295.
Carroll, A. B., Buchholtz, A. K.: Business and Society: Ethics and Stakeholder Management, Cincinnati (Southwestern Pub.) 2003.
CIULLA, J. B., PRICE, T. L., MURPHY, S. E.: The Quest for Moral Leaders. Essays on Leadership Ethics, Northampton (Edward Elgar Pub.) 2006.
CRANE, A., MATTEN, D.: Business Ethics: A European Perspective, New York (Oxford University Press) 2004.
DONALDSON, T., PRESTON, L. E.: “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation”, Academy of Management Review, 1 (1995), pp. 65-91.
ENDERLE, G.: “Zum Zusammenhang von Wirtschaftsethik, Unternehmensethik und Führungsethik“, in: H. STEINMANN, A. LÖHR (Eds.): Unternehmensethik, Stuttgart (Schäffer-Poeschel) 1991, pp. 173-187.
FREEMAN, R. E.: Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston (Pitman) 1984.
FREEMAN, R. E.: “The Stakeholder Approach Revisited”, Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsund Unternehmensethik, 3 (2004), pp. 228-241.
FREEMAN, R. E., VELAMURI, S. R.: “A New Approach to CSR: Company Stakeholder Responsibility”, in: A. KAKABADSE, M. MORSING (Eds.): Corporate Social Responsibility, New York (Palgrave Macmillan) 2006.
FREEMAN, R. E., WICKS, A. C., PARMAR, B.: “Stakeholder Theory and the ‘Corporate Objective Revisited’”, Organization Science, 15 (2004), pp. 364-369.
FRENCH, W., KIMMELL, S. T.: “Business Ethics and Discourse Ethics: Germanic Roots with Intercultural Applications”, in: P. KOSLOWSKI (Ed.): Contemporary Economic Ethics and Business Ethics, Berlin (Springer) 2000, pp. 193-209.
GHOSHAL, S.: “Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1 (2005), pp. 75-91.
GHOSHAL, S., MORAN, P.: “Bad for Practice: A Critique of the Transaction Cost Theory”, Academy of Management Review, 1 (1996), pp. 13-47.
GÖBEL, E.: Unternehmensethik, Stuttgart (Lucius & Lucius) 2006.
HABERMAS, J.: Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, Frankfurt (Suhrkamp) 1991.
HARPES, J. P., KUHLMANN, W. (1997) (Eds.): Zur Relevanz der Diskursethik. Anwendungsprobleme der Diskursethik in Wirtschaft und Politik, Münster et al. (LIT Pup.) 1997 (= Ethik und Wirtschaft im Dialog, Vol. 9).
HIRSCHMAN, A. O.: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy, Cambridge (Harvard University Press) 1991.
HOMANN, K.: “Marktwirtschaft und Unternehmensethik“, in: FORUM FÜR PHILOSOPHIE BAD HOMBURG (Ed.): Markt und Moral. Die Diskussion um die Unternehmensethik, Bern et al. (Haupt) 1994, pp. 109-130.
HOMANN, K., BLOME-DREES, F.: Wirtschafts- und Unternehmensethik, Göttingen (UTB) 1992.
KÜPPER, H.-U.: Unternehmensethik: Hintergründe, Konzepte, Anwendungsbereiche, Stuttgart (Schäffer-Poeschel) 2006.
MAAK, T., PLESS, N. M.: Responsible Leadership, London (Routledge) 2006.
MANDEVILLE, B.: The Fable of the Bees or Private Vices, Publick Benefits, Indianapolis (Liberty Classics) 1714.
Marshall, T. H.: Class, Citizenship and Social Development, New York (Doubleday Anchor) 1965.
MAYER-FAJE, A., ULRICH, P. (Eds.): Der andere Adam Smith - Beiträge zur Neubestimmung von Ökonomie als Politischer Ökonomie, Bern et al. (Haupt) 1991 (= St. Galler Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsethik, Band 5).
PACK, SP. J.: “Adam Smith on the Virtues: A Partial Resolution of the Adam Smith Problem”, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1 (1997), pp. 127-140.
PORTER, M. E.: “From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy”, Harvard Business Review, 3 (1987), pp. 43-59.
PORTER, M. E.: The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York (Free Press) 1990.
PORTER, M. E., KRAMER, M. R.: “The Competitive Advantage of Corporate Philanthropy”, in: HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW (Ed.): Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility, Boston (Little, Brown and Company) 2003, pp. 27-64.
PRIMAVESI, O.: “Artikel ‘Topik, Topos’” in: J. RITTER, K. GRÜNDER (Eds.): Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, (Bd. 10), Basel et al. (Schwabe & Co.) 1998, pp. 1263-1269.
RAPPAPORT, A.: “Selecting Strategies that Create Shareholder Value”, Harvard Business Review, 3 (1981), pp. 139-149.
RAPPAPORT, A.: Creating Shareholder Value: The New Standard for Business Performance, New York (Free Press) 21999.
REESE-SCHÄFER, W.: “Albert Hirschmans Studie zur ‚Rhetorik der Reaktion’“, in: I. PIES, M. LESCHKE (Eds.): Albert Hirschmans grenzüberschreitende Ökonomie, Tübingen (Mohr Siebeck) 2006, pp. 143-160.
SCHNEIDER, D.: “Unternehmensethik und Gewinnprinzip in der Betriebswirtschaftslehre“, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 10 (1990), pp. 869-891.
SCHNEIDER, D.: “Wird Betriebswirtschaftslehre durch Kritik an Unternehmensethik unverantwortlich?“, Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung, 6 (1991), pp. 537-543.
SMITH, A.: Theorie der ethischen Gefühle, ed. and transl. by W. Eckstein, Hamburg (Meiner) 1759.
SMITH, A.: Der Wohlstand der Nationen. Eine Untersuchung seiner Natur und seiner Ursachen, ed. and transl. by H. C. Recktenwald, München (Beck) 1776.
SMITH, C. W.: “The New Corporate Philanthropy”, Harvard Business Review, 3 (1994), pp. 105-116.
STEINMANN, H., LÖHR, A. (1994a): Grundlagen der Unternehmensethik, Stuttgart (Schäffer-Poeschel) 1994.
STEINMANN, H., LÖHR, A. (1994b): “Unternehmensethik - Ein republikanisches Programm in der Kritik“, in: FORUM FÜR PHILOSOPHIE BAD HOMBURG (Ed.): Markt und Moral. Die Diskussion um die Unternehmensethik, Bern et al. (Haupt) 1994, pp. 145-180.
STEINMANN, H., SCHERER, A. G.: “Die multinationale Unternehmung als moralischer Akteur: Bemerkungen zu einigen normativen Grundlagenproblemen des interkulturellen Managements“, in: N. BERGEMANN, A. L. J. SOURISSEAUX (Eds.): Interkulturelles Management, Heidelberg (Physica) 1997, pp. 23-53.
STEINMANN, H., SCHERER, A. G.: “Corporate Ethics and Global Business: Philosophical Considerations on Intercultural Management“, in: B. KUMAR, H. STEINMANN (Eds.): Ethics in International Management, Berlin (De Gruyter) 1998, pp. 13-46.
SUCHANEK, A.: Ökonomische Ethik, Tübingen (Mohr Siebeck) 2001.
SUCHANEK, A.: “Moral als Managementaufgabe“, in: A. BRINK, J. EURICH, C. GIERSCH (Eds.): Anreiz versus Tugend? Merkmale moderner Unternehmensethik, Hamburg (Dr. Kovac) 2005.
ULRICH, P.: Transformation der ökonomischen Vernunft. Fortschrittsperspektiven der modernen Industriegesellschaft, Bern et al. (Haupt) 1993.
ULRICH, P.: Der kritische Adam Smith im Spannungsfeld zwischen sittlichem Gefühl und ethischer Vernunft, St. Gallen (St. Gallen) 1998 (= Beiträge und Berichte, Vol. 40).
ULRICH, P.: Integrative Wirtschaftsethik - Grundlagen einer lebensdienlichen Ökonomie, Bern et al. (Haupt) 2001.
ULRICH, P.: “Sich im ethisch-politisch-ökonomischen Denken orientieren. Der St. Galler-Ansatz der integrativen Wirtschaftsethik“, in: D. MIETH, O. SCHUMANN, P. ULRICH (Eds.): Reflexionsfelder integrativer Wirtschaftsethik, Tübingen (Francke) 2004, pp. 11-28.
WIELAND, J.: “An Institutional Approach to Business Ethics”, in: P. KOSLOWSKI (Ed.): Contemporary Economic Ethics and Business Ethics, Berlin (Springer) 2000, pp. 245-255.
WIELAND, J.: “Corporate Governance, Values Management, and Standards - A European Perspective”, Business & Society, 1 (2005), pp. 74-93.
WILSON, J. Q.: “Adam Smith on Business Ethics”, California Management Review, 1 (1989), pp. 59-72.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brink, A. (2008). Business Ethics and the Rhetoric of Reaction. In: Trends in Business and Economic Ethics. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79472-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-79472-1_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-79471-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-79472-1
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)