On the Analogy Between Business and Sport: Towards an Aristotelian Response to The Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics

Abstract

This paper explores the notion that business calls for an adversarial ethic, akin to that of sport. On this view, because of their competitive structure, both sport and business call for behaviours that are contrary to ‘ordinary morality’, and yet are ultimately justified because of the goods they facilitate. I develop three objections to this analogy. Firstly, there is an important qualitative difference between harms risked voluntarily and harms risked involuntarily. Secondly, the goods achieved by adversarial relationships in sport go beyond the function of sport, i.e. to entertain audiences. Thirdly, the most plausible account of the athlete’s motivational development starts with their love of the sport, which can explain a commitment to the sporting ethics in a way that is not paralleled in business. I close by drawing attention to the ways in which an Aristotelian conception of business ethics may be able to accommodate these objections.

Spoof, Bluff, Go For It: A Defence of Spoofing

“…Part of the power of the poker bluffing business analogy made famous by Carr's Harvard Business Review article (Carr, 1968) derives from the fact that poker would lack much of its purpose or strategy if bluffing were not permissible (Cooper et al, 2016, p. 2). Since Carr, there has been significant critique of the business as poker analogy (Solomon, 1992;Varelius, 2006;Radoilska, 2008;von Kriegstein, 2019;Sinnicks, 2021a). In particular, Koehn points out that the strength of arguments from analogy can only be as strong as the analogic relationship itself (Koehn, 1997).…”

“…Critics reasonably point to differences between poker and business to explain why the analogy with poker can provide no support for this argument. For example they cite the types of goods at stake (Sinnicks, 2021a), the ability to change and develop the rules (Koehn, 1997), or the fact that bluffing is not necessarily endorsed by all business participants (Varelius, 2006;Hersch 2020). 13 That said, my argument is narrower than the claim that bluffing is a part of business negotiations.…”

Segmenting Fitness Center Customers: Leveraging Perceived Ethicality for Enhanced Loyalty, Trust, and Word-of-Mouth Communication

“…Additionally, this study engages with the broader theoretical foundations of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and business ethics, examining how consumers perceive and evaluate corporate decisions-a critical consideration given their significance as a stakeholder group for businesses [20]. Moreover, the research delves into the behavior of ethically conscious consumers, aligning with studies that demonstrate how ethical beliefs influence purchasing decisions and brand loyalty [21]. In this context, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) by Ajzen [22] is instrumental, positing that intentions are pivotal determinants of behavior, influenced by factors such as attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control.…”

Lying about Reservation Prices in Business Negotiation: A Qualified Defense

“…Albert Carr (1968) wrote an essay defending something like it fifty years ago. His essay has been much discussed but its ideas largely rejected ( e.g., Koehn 1997; Dees and Cramton 1991; Sinnicks 2022). Although the scope of the proposed license to deceive is unclear in Carr’s essay, it is clear enough in much of the literature that the essay prompted, a literature that focuses on deception regarding reservation prices, that is, on the worst price that one is willing to accept in a negotiation (Carson 1993; Dees and Cramton 1991; Strudler 1995).…”