Pub Date : 2007-07-01DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00501.x
R.G.A. Kaulingfreks, René ten Bos
This paper takes issue with what seem to be standard practices of at least some organizations that use models in their ad campaigns. These organizations know that many of their models have had drug problems but refuse either to tolerate this or to help them. Some organizations have, allegedly in the name of a responsibility for the health of their customers, rather opted for a firm condemnation of the practices in which models such as Kate Moss apparently engage. This raises questions about hypocrisy. The paper uses Levinas's concept of the face critically to describe what might be going on in the conflict between Moss and some of the companies she worked for. Moss is arguably understood by these companies as a role model who should not engage with drugs or street life. Against these more or less patronizing tendencies, the paper claims that it is not so much the face but processes of defacement that should trouble us from a moral perspective. The face, it is maintained, is not only ethical but also has a materiality. In opposition to what is maintained by at least some scholars of Levinas, art, literature and history have alerted us over and over again that the face is anything but indelible. Some examples from art show us the versatility and vulnerability of the face. The gossip and hype about what came to be known as the Kate Moss affair stands, it is argued, in a long misogynic tradition of defacement.
{"title":"On Faces and Defacement: The Case of Kate Moss","authors":"R.G.A. Kaulingfreks, René ten Bos","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00501.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00501.x","url":null,"abstract":"This paper takes issue with what seem to be standard practices of at least some organizations that use models in their ad campaigns. These organizations know that many of their models have had drug problems but refuse either to tolerate this or to help them. Some organizations have, allegedly in the name of a responsibility for the health of their customers, rather opted for a firm condemnation of the practices in which models such as Kate Moss apparently engage. This raises questions about hypocrisy. The paper uses Levinas's concept of the face critically to describe what might be going on in the conflict between Moss and some of the companies she worked for. Moss is arguably understood by these companies as a role model who should not engage with drugs or street life. Against these more or less patronizing tendencies, the paper claims that it is not so much the face but processes of defacement that should trouble us from a moral perspective. The face, it is maintained, is not only ethical but also has a materiality. In opposition to what is maintained by at least some scholars of Levinas, art, literature and history have alerted us over and over again that the face is anything but indelible. Some examples from art show us the versatility and vulnerability of the face. The gossip and hype about what came to be known as the Kate Moss affair stands, it is argued, in a long misogynic tradition of defacement.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82123519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-07-01DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00500.x
Per-Anders Forstorp
Fundraising and marketing of aid are increasingly sophisticated forms of business transaction covering a set of legal and economic aspects such as charity law, volunteering, tax-effective giving, philanthropy, donations and bequest solicitation, etc. (Sargeant & Jay 2002, Tempel 2002). Fundraising is also related to ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ aimed at presenting corporations as generous and responsible by means of integrating social and environmental factors in their business activities, far beyond, so we are told, of what the law actually requires. While the act of giving in the realm of philanthropy perhaps first of all is motivated by an individual’s willingness to sacrifice some part of his/her economic or temporal surplus in order to help others, it is also imbued with innovative business models where this initial incentive is optimized (Seiler 2005). Soliciting the goodwill and financial generosity of the individual giver is obviously claimed as the most legitimate concern in any kind of fundraising transaction. This activity, however, takes place with the help of the continuous development of business models where the altruism, empathy and the human ability to establish relations are operationalized in more concrete transactional terms. Thus, the process in which generosity is operationalized in methods and technologies for giving can be referred to as a process in which the intentions and actions of a donor are commodified (Thrift 2005). Without questioning the general good intentions of fundraising or the authentic generosity of givers, there is certainly a tension between the giver’s empathy for others, on the one hand, and the calculating rationality of the fundraiser, on the other, in his or her effort of marketing or persuading a potential donor (Derrida 1992). It is far beyond this introduction, however, to go deeper into this fascinating blend of altruism and business rationality. A more thorough analysis of fundraising would need to relate to important themes in economic anthropology focusing on issues such as the symbolic representation of money and the moral evaluation of monetary exchange in order to explore the range of cultural meanings around monetary transactions (Bloch & Parry 1989, Parry 1989). Influential economic theories, e.g. by Marx and Simmel in their respective ways, state that money acts as a powerful agent of social and cultural transformation. Money is credited with intrinsic power and attributed as the agent of social change. They also note that money encapsulates a spirit of rationality, calculability and anonymity that may potentially both cause and stand in contrast to a spirit of community associated with an idealized Gemeinschaft. The historical observation that money is linked to the growth of individualism and to the decline of communities of solidarity in which social bonds are dissolved (but also strengthened) is a theory that may be typically Western in its outlook. In this context, the observa
{"title":"Fundraising Discourse and the Commodification of the Other","authors":"Per-Anders Forstorp","doi":"10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00500.x","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8608.2007.00500.x","url":null,"abstract":"Fundraising and marketing of aid are increasingly sophisticated forms of business transaction covering a set of legal and economic aspects such as charity law, volunteering, tax-effective giving, philanthropy, donations and bequest solicitation, etc. (Sargeant & Jay 2002, Tempel 2002). Fundraising is also related to ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’ aimed at presenting corporations as generous and responsible by means of integrating social and environmental factors in their business activities, far beyond, so we are told, of what the law actually requires. While the act of giving in the realm of philanthropy perhaps first of all is motivated by an individual’s willingness to sacrifice some part of his/her economic or temporal surplus in order to help others, it is also imbued with innovative business models where this initial incentive is optimized (Seiler 2005). Soliciting the goodwill and financial generosity of the individual giver is obviously claimed as the most legitimate concern in any kind of fundraising transaction. This activity, however, takes place with the help of the continuous development of business models where the altruism, empathy and the human ability to establish relations are operationalized in more concrete transactional terms. Thus, the process in which generosity is operationalized in methods and technologies for giving can be referred to as a process in which the intentions and actions of a donor are commodified (Thrift 2005). Without questioning the general good intentions of fundraising or the authentic generosity of givers, there is certainly a tension between the giver’s empathy for others, on the one hand, and the calculating rationality of the fundraiser, on the other, in his or her effort of marketing or persuading a potential donor (Derrida 1992). It is far beyond this introduction, however, to go deeper into this fascinating blend of altruism and business rationality. A more thorough analysis of fundraising would need to relate to important themes in economic anthropology focusing on issues such as the symbolic representation of money and the moral evaluation of monetary exchange in order to explore the range of cultural meanings around monetary transactions (Bloch & Parry 1989, Parry 1989). Influential economic theories, e.g. by Marx and Simmel in their respective ways, state that money acts as a powerful agent of social and cultural transformation. Money is credited with intrinsic power and attributed as the agent of social change. They also note that money encapsulates a spirit of rationality, calculability and anonymity that may potentially both cause and stand in contrast to a spirit of community associated with an idealized Gemeinschaft. The historical observation that money is linked to the growth of individualism and to the decline of communities of solidarity in which social bonds are dissolved (but also strengthened) is a theory that may be typically Western in its outlook. In this context, the observa","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88696567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00484.X
Leslie Sekerka, R. Bagozzi
Why is moral courage in the workplace viewed as the unusual, rather than the norm? If we want to cultivate organizational environments that exhibit moral strength, we must consider how courage can be exercised in daily organizational life, as an action that can be achieved by everyone. To explore this notion, we see a need to develop additional understanding of how people determine whether or not they will act in a morally courageous way when faced with an ethical challenge. While existing theory sheds light on various aspects of ethical decision making, missing from the literature is an examination of how emotions, automatic responses to situational conditions, along with conscious and deliberative thought, work together to help guide this process. Yet to be fully explored are the internal factors and the social influences that accompany them, specifically those that contribute to forming the desire and decision to act with moral courage. We argue that scholarship designed to explain how this process unfolds will reshape our understanding of moral courage as an action open to self-control, and thus can occur more frequently than the rare event it is often presumed to be. Our depiction of the organizational member’s response to an ethical challenge helps take moral courage out of the extraordinary and into the realm of what can be achieved by most people, at least some of the time. Leading scholars in the area of ethical decision making have put forth an invitation to integrate constructs, topics and issues that span academic fields, taking a cross-disciplinary approach (Payne & Giacalone 1990, Treviño 1992). We accept this call and propose a process orientation to the study of moral conduct, one that is grounded in the behavioural sciences but mindful of philosophical contributions. Considering the recent focus on positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al. 2003), we also show how moral courage can be better understood, encouraged and taught, by learning what contributes to organizational moral flourishing. If organizational members are expected to conduct themselves with exemplary standards of ethical behaviour, it is the responsibility of scholars and managers to provide clarity on how to do so effectively. To address this concern we ask, What induces people to act in morally courageous ways as they face an ethical challenge in the workplace? Our starting assumption is that moral courage can be realized and achieved by most organizational members, under certain personal and situational conditions. To build Respectively: Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior and Ethics, Graduate School of Business & Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA; and Professor of Marketing, Stephen M. Ross School of Business & Professor of Social and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI, USA.
为什么职场中的道德勇气被视为不寻常，而不是常态?如果我们想要培养展现道德力量的组织环境，我们必须考虑如何在日常组织生活中行使勇气，使之成为每个人都能实现的行动。为了探索这一概念，我们认为有必要进一步了解人们在面临道德挑战时如何决定他们是否会以道德勇敢的方式行事。虽然现有的理论揭示了道德决策的各个方面，但文献中缺少的是对情绪、对情境条件的自动反应、以及有意识和深思熟虑的思考如何共同帮助指导这一过程的研究。然而，有待充分探讨的是内部因素和伴随这些因素的社会影响，特别是那些有助于形成以道德勇气行动的愿望和决定的因素。我们认为，旨在解释这一过程如何展开的学术研究，将重塑我们对道德勇气的理解，即道德勇气是一种可以自我控制的行为，因此它可能比通常认为的罕见事件更频繁地发生。我们对组织成员对道德挑战的反应的描述，有助于将道德勇气从非凡中带出，进入大多数人都能做到的领域，至少在某些时候。伦理决策领域的主要学者已经提出了一个邀请，即采用跨学科的方法，整合跨学术领域的结构、主题和问题(Payne & Giacalone 1990, Treviño 1992)。我们接受这一呼吁，并提出一种道德行为研究的过程导向，一种以行为科学为基础，但注意哲学贡献的导向。考虑到最近对积极组织学术的关注(Cameron et al. 2003)，我们也展示了如何通过学习什么有助于组织道德繁荣来更好地理解、鼓励和教授道德勇气。如果期望组织成员以道德行为的模范标准行事，那么学者和管理者就有责任明确说明如何有效地做到这一点。为了解决这个问题，我们提出了这样的问题:当人们在工作场所面临道德挑战时，是什么促使他们以道德勇敢的方式行事?我们最初的假设是，在一定的个人和情境条件下，大多数组织成员可以实现和实现道德勇气。分别建立:美国加利福尼亚州蒙特雷海军研究生院商业与公共政策研究生院组织行为学与伦理学助理教授;美国密歇根州安娜堡市密歇根大学药学院Stephen M. Ross商学院市场营销学教授及社会与行政科学教授。
{"title":"Moral courage in the workplace: moving to and from the desire and decision to act","authors":"Leslie Sekerka, R. Bagozzi","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00484.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00484.X","url":null,"abstract":"Why is moral courage in the workplace viewed as the unusual, rather than the norm? If we want to cultivate organizational environments that exhibit moral strength, we must consider how courage can be exercised in daily organizational life, as an action that can be achieved by everyone. To explore this notion, we see a need to develop additional understanding of how people determine whether or not they will act in a morally courageous way when faced with an ethical challenge. While existing theory sheds light on various aspects of ethical decision making, missing from the literature is an examination of how emotions, automatic responses to situational conditions, along with conscious and deliberative thought, work together to help guide this process. Yet to be fully explored are the internal factors and the social influences that accompany them, specifically those that contribute to forming the desire and decision to act with moral courage. We argue that scholarship designed to explain how this process unfolds will reshape our understanding of moral courage as an action open to self-control, and thus can occur more frequently than the rare event it is often presumed to be. Our depiction of the organizational member’s response to an ethical challenge helps take moral courage out of the extraordinary and into the realm of what can be achieved by most people, at least some of the time. Leading scholars in the area of ethical decision making have put forth an invitation to integrate constructs, topics and issues that span academic fields, taking a cross-disciplinary approach (Payne & Giacalone 1990, Treviño 1992). We accept this call and propose a process orientation to the study of moral conduct, one that is grounded in the behavioural sciences but mindful of philosophical contributions. Considering the recent focus on positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al. 2003), we also show how moral courage can be better understood, encouraged and taught, by learning what contributes to organizational moral flourishing. If organizational members are expected to conduct themselves with exemplary standards of ethical behaviour, it is the responsibility of scholars and managers to provide clarity on how to do so effectively. To address this concern we ask, What induces people to act in morally courageous ways as they face an ethical challenge in the workplace? Our starting assumption is that moral courage can be realized and achieved by most organizational members, under certain personal and situational conditions. To build Respectively: Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior and Ethics, Graduate School of Business & Public Policy, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, USA; and Professor of Marketing, Stephen M. Ross School of Business & Professor of Social and Administrative Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, MI, USA.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"16 1","pages":"132-149"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85226698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00482.X
E. Karassavidou, Niki Glaveli
{"title":"Ethical orientations of future Greek business people: is anomia responsible for deviant ethical attitudes?.","authors":"E. Karassavidou, Niki Glaveli","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00482.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00482.X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"43 1","pages":"114-123"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80390833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00483.X
A. Mansbach
{"title":"Political surplus of whistleblowing: a case study","authors":"A. Mansbach","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00483.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00483.X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"33 1","pages":"124-131"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77241698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00486.X
Yvonne Stedham, J. Yamamura, R. Beekun
{"title":"Gender differences in business ethics: Justice and relativist perspectives","authors":"Yvonne Stedham, J. Yamamura, R. Beekun","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00486.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00486.X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"81 1","pages":"163-174"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73361088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00480.X
W. Block, Paul Cwik
It is imperative that business ethics be taught at all MBA programmes, and even at the undergraduate level. While no graduate of law, dentistry, veterinary, medicine, engineering, social work or other professional schools can take a degree in any of these respective subjects without being made aware of the case for the propriety and general beneficence of their calling, the same, unfortunately, cannot be said in the case of business schools. In the latter case, all too often, students are allowed to graduate without ever once being confronted with the argument that business too, and even pre-eminently so, makes an important contribution to society, and is a worthwhile pursuit. All too often, despite even having a course in business ethics, students emerge believing that commerce is either vaguely disreputable, or even that it is totally dishonest per se and exploitative. No graduate school from anthropology to zoology has to suffer any similar ignominy. Business ethics is seen by many graduate schools of commerce or management as a luxury, which can be jettisoned in favour of other, and sometimes more fashionable, courses. When a business ethics course is offered, the content of the course pays very little attention to the essential ethic of business. Instead, the focus of many business ethics courses is the ethical dilemmas that arise in a business setting. There is a fundamental difference between the ethics of a market and behaving ethically in a business. A market is a process by which individuals interact with one another. Thus, the former examines the actions, interactions and consequences of those actions between individuals as a system, while the later examines the dilemma before an individual and the morality of the choices to be made. There are 38 unique business ethics titles under the top six textbook publishing companies, 22 of which were published in 2005 or later. (Appendix I lists the publishers and the respective textbooks.) Upon reviewing these textbooks in business ethics, we see a tremendous number of chapters that address corporate social responsibility, the collective responsibility of an organization, how the corporation should treat its employees and personal decision making. (Of the 38 titles, most followed a very similar format, while seven followed the casebook format.) Typically, there is an initial chapter introducing the student to business ethics. Newton & Ford (2006), for example, entitle their first chapter ‘Is Capitalism the Best Route to Human Happiness?’. It then contrasts readings from Adam Smith and Karl Marx, leaving the student with the false impression that philosophical arguments supporting the ethics of the market have not progressed in the past 225 years. Throughout the rest of Newton & Ford (2006), the issue is dropped and the focus shifts to the modern issues that address ethics of business decisions, like corporate responsibility, etc. The exclusion from the discussion of the ethics of business is ab
{"title":"Teaching Business Ethics: A ‘Classificationist’ Approach","authors":"W. Block, Paul Cwik","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00480.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00480.X","url":null,"abstract":"It is imperative that business ethics be taught at all MBA programmes, and even at the undergraduate level. While no graduate of law, dentistry, veterinary, medicine, engineering, social work or other professional schools can take a degree in any of these respective subjects without being made aware of the case for the propriety and general beneficence of their calling, the same, unfortunately, cannot be said in the case of business schools. In the latter case, all too often, students are allowed to graduate without ever once being confronted with the argument that business too, and even pre-eminently so, makes an important contribution to society, and is a worthwhile pursuit. All too often, despite even having a course in business ethics, students emerge believing that commerce is either vaguely disreputable, or even that it is totally dishonest per se and exploitative. No graduate school from anthropology to zoology has to suffer any similar ignominy. Business ethics is seen by many graduate schools of commerce or management as a luxury, which can be jettisoned in favour of other, and sometimes more fashionable, courses. When a business ethics course is offered, the content of the course pays very little attention to the essential ethic of business. Instead, the focus of many business ethics courses is the ethical dilemmas that arise in a business setting. There is a fundamental difference between the ethics of a market and behaving ethically in a business. A market is a process by which individuals interact with one another. Thus, the former examines the actions, interactions and consequences of those actions between individuals as a system, while the later examines the dilemma before an individual and the morality of the choices to be made. There are 38 unique business ethics titles under the top six textbook publishing companies, 22 of which were published in 2005 or later. (Appendix I lists the publishers and the respective textbooks.) Upon reviewing these textbooks in business ethics, we see a tremendous number of chapters that address corporate social responsibility, the collective responsibility of an organization, how the corporation should treat its employees and personal decision making. (Of the 38 titles, most followed a very similar format, while seven followed the casebook format.) Typically, there is an initial chapter introducing the student to business ethics. Newton & Ford (2006), for example, entitle their first chapter ‘Is Capitalism the Best Route to Human Happiness?’. It then contrasts readings from Adam Smith and Karl Marx, leaving the student with the false impression that philosophical arguments supporting the ethics of the market have not progressed in the past 225 years. Throughout the rest of Newton & Ford (2006), the issue is dropped and the focus shifts to the modern issues that address ethics of business decisions, like corporate responsibility, etc. The exclusion from the discussion of the ethics of business is ab","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"2 1","pages":"98-106"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80855361","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00481.X
Ulrich Hagenmeyer
More and more management consultants are digging deep to unearth profound answers to ethical issues in the consulting business. Searching questions are being asked about how they perceive themselves. A number of failed consulting projects with dramatic consequences such as Swissair Group or Enron have recently hit the headlines and often brought questionable ‘principles of consulting’ to light (e.g. Byrne 2000, 2002). A tarnished image and eroding confidence have affected this industry especially hard: the whole business stands or falls by the consultant’s reputation, because consulting performance can only be ‘measured’ by approximation and estimation (cf. O’Shea & Madigan 1997, Ernst 2002). Increasingly, therefore, consultants are looking to a new, ethically more robust understanding of what they do.
越来越多的管理顾问正在深入挖掘咨询业务中道德问题的深刻答案。关于他们如何看待自己的问题被问到。最近，瑞士航空集团(Swissair Group)或安然公司(Enron)等一些失败的咨询项目引发了戏剧性的后果，它们登上了新闻头条，并经常将可疑的“咨询原则”暴露出来(例如Byrne 2000, 2002)。形象受损和信心受损对这个行业的影响尤为严重:整个行业的成败取决于咨询师的声誉，因为咨询业绩只能通过近似和估计来“衡量”(参见O’shea & Madigan 1997, Ernst 2002)。因此，越来越多的咨询师正在寻求一种新的、道德上更健全的理解他们所做的事情。
{"title":"Integrity in management consulting: a contradiction in terms?.","authors":"Ulrich Hagenmeyer","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00481.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00481.X","url":null,"abstract":"More and more management consultants are digging deep to unearth profound answers to ethical issues in the consulting business. Searching questions are being asked about how they perceive themselves. A number of failed consulting projects with dramatic consequences such as Swissair Group or Enron have recently hit the headlines and often brought questionable ‘principles of consulting’ to light (e.g. Byrne 2000, 2002). A tarnished image and eroding confidence have affected this industry especially hard: the whole business stands or falls by the consultant’s reputation, because consulting performance can only be ‘measured’ by approximation and estimation (cf. O’Shea & Madigan 1997, Ernst 2002). Increasingly, therefore, consultants are looking to a new, ethically more robust understanding of what they do.","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"5 1","pages":"107-113"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80158382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00485.X
A. V. Smith‐Hillman
{"title":"Socially irresponsible, unethical or business as usual? UK case of Argos Ltd. and Littlewoods Ltd. v. OFT.","authors":"A. V. Smith‐Hillman","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00485.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00485.X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"53 1","pages":"150-162"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86751592","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2007-04-01DOI: 10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00487.X
C. Valor, M. Cuesta
{"title":"An empirical analysis of the demand of Spanish religious groups and charities for socially responsible investments","authors":"C. Valor, M. Cuesta","doi":"10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00487.X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-8608.2007.00487.X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47954,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics-A European Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"175-190"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90201242","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：