Donaldsonian Themes: A Commentary

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The articles in the special issue of Business Ethics Quarterly (2015), “Normative Business Ethics in a Global Economy: New Directions on Donaldsonian Themes,” were written by a set of outstanding scholars: Margaret M. Blair, Joseph P. Gaspar, Nien-hê Hsieh, Peter L. Jennings, Marietta Peytcheva, Andreas Georg Scherer, Amy J. Sepinwall, Andrew Stark, Danielle E. Warren, and Manuel Velasquez. In this commentary I reply to my colleagues, arranging my reply around the following themes: 1) the corporate moral agent; 2) the idea of a social contract for business; 3) managing ethics within corporations; and 4) values in business. I discuss each in turn. However, I reflect first on my idiosyncratic approach to business ethics.

Corporate And Cooperative Social Responsibility

“…The mid of the 1980s was the period for the second concept to develop, that of recognizing a corporation as a moral agent. It was supported by French (2018), Donaldson (2017), Goodpaster andMattheus Jr. (1982), Anisimov, (1985). The core of the concept is a discussion of the moral status of a corporation (Donaldson, 2017;Donaldson & Walsh, 2015).…”

“…It was supported by French (2018), Donaldson (2017), Goodpaster andMattheus Jr. (1982), Anisimov, (1985). The core of the concept is a discussion of the moral status of a corporation (Donaldson, 2017;Donaldson & Walsh, 2015). It is important to note that a corporation is regarded as an artificial phenomenon, a legal entity bearing moral responsibility which is different from moral responsibility of the individuals who run the corporation (French, 2018).…”

“…Collective moral responsibility, along with its appropriateness, is a focus of research papers by Ladd (1970), French (2018), De George (2017), Donaldson (2017), Goodpaster and Mattheus (1982) etc., it is also a focus of papers by Russian researcher such as Anisimov (1985), etc.…”

The Enduring Potential of Justified Hypernorms

“…In section 2, we summarize Scherer and Palazzo's critique of ISCT as reflected in the hypernorm challenge presented by DAML. To pursue the constructive project, we take direction from Scherer (2015) and Donaldson's (2017) apparent openness to the potential for an account of hypernorms that includes discursive input legitimacy conditions (Mena & Palazzo, 2012). More concretely, in section 3, we draw from Gilbert and Behnam's (2009) significant effort to build upon and respond to concerns raised by earlier critiques of ISCT by proposing to define processual requirements that serve as necessary conditions for the moral legitimacy of hypernorms.…”

“…It is along this fault line that Donaldson (2017: 137-38) acknowledges the potential to bolster ISCT's legitimacy. We begin our constructive exercise with Gilbert and Behnam's (2009) intriguing and potentially fruitful proposal to address the hypernorm challenge and avoid the limitations of monological reasoning, anticipating the recent suggestions offered by Scherer (2015) and Donaldson (2017) who posit that hypernorms can be justified via Habermasian discursive processes. In contrast with other scholars who have suggested abandoning ISCT altogether (e.g., van Oosterhout et al, 2006), Gilbert and Behnam seek, precisely as we do, to address the hypernorm challenge so as to preserve and build upon the "potential of ISCT in producing action guiding norms for managers" (2009: 216).…”