The editorial essay, such as this one, in which incoming editors in chief to a reputed academic journal present their viewsof a field, their strategy for a journal, and how they are going to impact an ongoing ecology of academic discourses, is a strange genre. Its authors traverse the tightrope stretched between change and continuity, seeking to inspire and renewwithout alienating the community on whose efforts the reputation of the journal is built and without compromising the reputation of that journal. We accepted the honorable responsibility of leading BEQ because we admire its pluralism and welcoming of multiple perspectives, the rigor and quality of its editorial review process, and the high-quality work that results from that process. These are qualities to which we have committed ourselves and that we seek to advance. We are well aware that the reputation of a respectable journal like BEQ has built up over time, as the result of the dedication and effort of many individuals: our predecessors, associated editors, reviewers, authors. It has thus become institutionalized; it has, over time, obtained a “life of its own” (Selznick 1949). In light of this, we see our role as being primi inter pares. On that same account, we are somewhat skeptical of the embellishment of the leadership of individual editors, a phenomenon that one may occasionally encounter in informal conversations. Editorial leadership is teamwork; it has multiple dimensions, including both gatekeeping and curating promising manuscript submissions to publication. Yet, and precisely because of institutionalization, the ability of editors—and their editorial essays—to influence authors’ decisions on what they study, how they write, and where they submit their work can easily be overstated. Consequently, in preparing for the professional and functional aspects of their new role, prospective editors are well advised to read, for example, Baruch et al.’s (2008)Opening the Black Box of Editorship, because of its considerate and practical advice. But alongside, they also may wish to read Lev Tolstoy’sWar and Peace, for example, as a reminder that the ability of leadership to
像这篇这样的社论，是一种奇怪的体裁，在这篇社论中，一家知名学术期刊的新任主编展示了他们对一个领域的看法，他们对期刊的策略，以及他们将如何影响正在进行的学术话语生态。它的作者们在变化和延续之间走钢丝，寻求激励和更新，同时又不疏远期刊声誉赖以建立的群体，也不损害期刊的声誉。我们接受了领导BEQ的光荣责任，因为我们钦佩它的多元化和对多种观点的欢迎，钦佩其编辑审查过程的严谨性和质量，以及该过程产生的高质量工作。这些都是我们所承诺的品质，也是我们寻求进步的品质。我们很清楚，像《BEQ》这样受人尊敬的期刊的声誉是随着时间的推移而建立起来的，这是许多人的奉献和努力的结果:我们的前辈、联合编辑、审稿人、作者。因此，它已经制度化了;随着时间的推移，它获得了“自己的生命”(Selznick 1949)。鉴于此，我们认为我们的角色是主要的中间人。出于同样的原因，我们对个别编辑的领导能力的修饰有些怀疑，这种现象偶尔会在非正式谈话中遇到。编辑领导是团队合作;它有多个维度，包括把关和策划有前途的稿件提交到出版物。然而，正是由于这种制度化，编辑和他们的社论影响作者决定研究什么、如何写作和在哪里提交作品的能力很容易被夸大。因此，在为新角色的专业和职能方面做准备时，建议未来的编辑仔细阅读，例如，Baruch等人(2008)的《打开编辑的黑盒子》(Opening the Black Box of Editorship)，因为它提供了周到和实用的建议。但除此之外，他们也可能希望阅读列夫·托尔斯泰的《战争与和平》，例如，作为一个提醒，领导的能力
{"title":"Editorial Musings on What Makes the Blood Flow in Business Ethics Research","authors":"F. den Hond, Mollie Painter","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.51","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.51","url":null,"abstract":"The editorial essay, such as this one, in which incoming editors in chief to a reputed academic journal present their viewsof a field, their strategy for a journal, and how they are going to impact an ongoing ecology of academic discourses, is a strange genre. Its authors traverse the tightrope stretched between change and continuity, seeking to inspire and renewwithout alienating the community on whose efforts the reputation of the journal is built and without compromising the reputation of that journal. We accepted the honorable responsibility of leading BEQ because we admire its pluralism and welcoming of multiple perspectives, the rigor and quality of its editorial review process, and the high-quality work that results from that process. These are qualities to which we have committed ourselves and that we seek to advance. We are well aware that the reputation of a respectable journal like BEQ has built up over time, as the result of the dedication and effort of many individuals: our predecessors, associated editors, reviewers, authors. It has thus become institutionalized; it has, over time, obtained a “life of its own” (Selznick 1949). In light of this, we see our role as being primi inter pares. On that same account, we are somewhat skeptical of the embellishment of the leadership of individual editors, a phenomenon that one may occasionally encounter in informal conversations. Editorial leadership is teamwork; it has multiple dimensions, including both gatekeeping and curating promising manuscript submissions to publication. Yet, and precisely because of institutionalization, the ability of editors—and their editorial essays—to influence authors’ decisions on what they study, how they write, and where they submit their work can easily be overstated. Consequently, in preparing for the professional and functional aspects of their new role, prospective editors are well advised to read, for example, Baruch et al.’s (2008)Opening the Black Box of Editorship, because of its considerate and practical advice. But alongside, they also may wish to read Lev Tolstoy’sWar and Peace, for example, as a reminder that the ability of leadership to","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42577667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"BEQ volume 32 issue 1 Cover and Front matter","authors":"F. D. Hond, Juliane Reinecke, Bradley R. Agle","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.53","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48670648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent corporate social initiatives (CSIs) have garnered criticisms from a wide range of audiences due to perceived inconsistencies. Some critics use the label “woke” when CSIs are perceived as inconsistent with the firm’s purpose. Other critics use the label “woke washing” when CSIs are perceived as inconsistent with the firm’s practices or values. I will argue that this derogatory use of woke is stigmatizing, leads to claims of hypocrisy, and can cause stakeholder backlash. I connect this process to our own field by considering inconsistencies in our organizations and in our teaching that could garner similar criticisms. After describing the stigmatization process, I consider the moral implications of inconsistencies for CSIs and draw parallels to our field. I end by suggesting next steps for our field in response to the stigmatization of CSIs and to guard against the stigmatization of our own work.
{"title":"“Woke” Corporations and the Stigmatization of Corporate Social Initiatives","authors":"Danielle E. Warren","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.48","url":null,"abstract":"Recent corporate social initiatives (CSIs) have garnered criticisms from a wide range of audiences due to perceived inconsistencies. Some critics use the label “woke” when CSIs are perceived as inconsistent with the firm’s purpose. Other critics use the label “woke washing” when CSIs are perceived as inconsistent with the firm’s practices or values. I will argue that this derogatory use of woke is stigmatizing, leads to claims of hypocrisy, and can cause stakeholder backlash. I connect this process to our own field by considering inconsistencies in our organizations and in our teaching that could garner similar criticisms. After describing the stigmatization process, I consider the moral implications of inconsistencies for CSIs and draw parallels to our field. I end by suggesting next steps for our field in response to the stigmatization of CSIs and to guard against the stigmatization of our own work.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47264754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality, by Katharina Pistor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019. 297 pp.","authors":"T. Mulligan","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.49","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.49","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46013780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Overlooked Thinkers: Stretching the Boundaries of Business Ethics Scholarship (Guest Editors’ Introduction) – Corrigendum","authors":"A. Wicks, Lindsay Thompson, P. Werhane, N. Bowie","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.47","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45449381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I argue that lying in business negotiations is pro tanto wrong and no less wrong than lying in other contexts. First, I assert that lying in general is pro tanto wrong. Then, I examine and refute five arguments to the effect that lying in a business context is less wrong than lying in other contexts. The common thought behind these arguments—based on consent, self-defence, the “greater good,” fiduciary duty, and practicality—is that the particular circumstances which are characteristic of business negotiations are such that the wrongness of lying is either mitigated or eliminated completely. I argue that all these “special exemption” arguments fail. I conclude that, in the absence of a credible argument to the contrary, the same moral constraints must apply to lying in business negotiations as apply to lying in other contexts. Furthermore, I show that for the negotiator, there are real practical benefits from not lying.
{"title":"A Lie Is a Lie: The Ethics of Lying in Business Negotiations","authors":"Charles N. C. Sherwood","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.41","url":null,"abstract":"I argue that lying in business negotiations is pro tanto wrong and no less wrong than lying in other contexts. First, I assert that lying in general is pro tanto wrong. Then, I examine and refute five arguments to the effect that lying in a business context is less wrong than lying in other contexts. The common thought behind these arguments—based on consent, self-defence, the “greater good,” fiduciary duty, and practicality—is that the particular circumstances which are characteristic of business negotiations are such that the wrongness of lying is either mitigated or eliminated completely. I argue that all these “special exemption” arguments fail. I conclude that, in the absence of a credible argument to the contrary, the same moral constraints must apply to lying in business negotiations as apply to lying in other contexts. Furthermore, I show that for the negotiator, there are real practical benefits from not lying.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44955726","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There are two opposing views concerning intuitive cases of wage exploitation. The first denies that they are cases of exploitation at all. It is based on the nonworseness claim: there is nothing wrong with a discretionary mutually beneficial employment relationship. The second is the reasonable view: some employment relationships can be exploitative even if employers have no duty towards their employees. This article argues that the reasonable view does not completely defeat defences of wage exploitation, because these do not rely solely on the nonworseness claim. They also rely on the idea, popularised by Alan Wertheimer, that exploitation is a form of disequilibrium price occurring in defective markets. The article then proceeds to criticise Wertheimer’s account through neoclassical, new institutional, and Austrian economics. It concludes that considerations for economic efficiency are irrelevant to assessing intuitions regarding exploitation.
{"title":"Wage Exploitation as Disequilibrium Price","authors":"S. Richard","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.45","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.45","url":null,"abstract":"There are two opposing views concerning intuitive cases of wage exploitation. The first denies that they are cases of exploitation at all. It is based on the nonworseness claim: there is nothing wrong with a discretionary mutually beneficial employment relationship. The second is the reasonable view: some employment relationships can be exploitative even if employers have no duty towards their employees. This article argues that the reasonable view does not completely defeat defences of wage exploitation, because these do not rely solely on the nonworseness claim. They also rely on the idea, popularised by Alan Wertheimer, that exploitation is a form of disequilibrium price occurring in defective markets. The article then proceeds to criticise Wertheimer’s account through neoclassical, new institutional, and Austrian economics. It concludes that considerations for economic efficiency are irrelevant to assessing intuitions regarding exploitation.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45105471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Employment-at-will (EAW) is the legal presumption that employers and employees may terminate an employment relationship for any or no reason. Defenders of EAW have argued that it promotes autonomy and efficiency. Critics have argued that it allows for the domination, subordination, and arbitrary treatment of employees. We intervene in this debate by arguing that the case for EAW is contextual in a way that existing business ethics scholarship has not considered. In particular, we argue that the justifiability of EAW for a given jurisdiction depends on existing complementarities among the institutions that constitute the jurisdiction’s political economy. Notably, our view takes seriously the ethical concerns EAW critics have raised by showing how these concerns can be mitigated through public policy measures that do not require eliminating EAW.
{"title":"The Ethics of Employment-at-Will: An Institutional Complementarities Approach","authors":"Vikram R. Bhargava, Carson Young","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.40","url":null,"abstract":"Employment-at-will (EAW) is the legal presumption that employers and employees may terminate an employment relationship for any or no reason. Defenders of EAW have argued that it promotes autonomy and efficiency. Critics have argued that it allows for the domination, subordination, and arbitrary treatment of employees. We intervene in this debate by arguing that the case for EAW is contextual in a way that existing business ethics scholarship has not considered. In particular, we argue that the justifiability of EAW for a given jurisdiction depends on existing complementarities among the institutions that constitute the jurisdiction’s political economy. Notably, our view takes seriously the ethical concerns EAW critics have raised by showing how these concerns can be mitigated through public policy measures that do not require eliminating EAW.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44261343","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Critical scholarship often presents corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a reflection or embodiment of neoliberalism. Against this sort of sweeping political characterization we argue that CSR can indeed be considered a liberal concept but that it embodies a “varieties of liberalism.” Building theoretically on the work of Michael Freeden on liberal languages, John Ruggie and Karl Polanyi on embedded forms of liberalism, and Michel Foucault on the distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism, we provide a conceptual treatment and mapping of the ideological positions that constitute the bulk of modern scholarly CSR debate. Thus, we distinguish between embedded liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and re-embedded liberalism. We develop these four orientations in turn and show how they are engaged in “battles of ideas” over the meaning and scope of corporate responsibilities—and how they all remain relevant for an understanding of contemporary debates and developments in the field of CSR and corporate sustainability.
{"title":"Ideologies of Corporate Responsibility: From Neoliberalism to “Varieties of Liberalism”","authors":"Steen Vallentin, David Murillo","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.43","url":null,"abstract":"Critical scholarship often presents corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a reflection or embodiment of neoliberalism. Against this sort of sweeping political characterization we argue that CSR can indeed be considered a liberal concept but that it embodies a “varieties of liberalism.” Building theoretically on the work of Michael Freeden on liberal languages, John Ruggie and Karl Polanyi on embedded forms of liberalism, and Michel Foucault on the distinction between classical liberalism and neoliberalism, we provide a conceptual treatment and mapping of the ideological positions that constitute the bulk of modern scholarly CSR debate. Thus, we distinguish between embedded liberalism, classical liberalism, neoliberalism, and re-embedded liberalism. We develop these four orientations in turn and show how they are engaged in “battles of ideas” over the meaning and scope of corporate responsibilities—and how they all remain relevant for an understanding of contemporary debates and developments in the field of CSR and corporate sustainability.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43222677","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.
{"title":"Affects in Online Stakeholder Engagement: A Dissensus Perspective","authors":"Itziar Castelló, David López-Berzosa","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.35","url":null,"abstract":"A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43601434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：