BEQ opening up to publishing art reviews strikes me as something like an event in itself: the journal’s relational capacity is extended to new influences, which brings new potentialities that in turn assemble new readers and existing readers in new ways. This “eventness” indicates that it is an important move for a journal like BEQ to make. It suggests, as the editors stated in their essay (den Hond and Painter 2022, 7–8), that art can renew our vocabularies and provide inspiration for thinking anew by having us reflect on our self-formation, inviting us to empathize with the other and enhance our moral imagination (Werhane 1998; Ciulla 1998). Philosophers Bergson, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze, to mention some who were inclined to problematize time, force, power, affect and process, all engaged with art at some point in their careers. If I venture to summarize how the result of this engagement would be expressed, it would be with the slogan “Where to start? Start with art!” In the thick forest of thought, art brings us to a clearing where thinking is given a good reason to start anew. Canonical ethical will-formation surely points us in the direction of roads often taken, yet affected, we stand in the clearing with an increased capacity to interact, and we realize we can imagine multiple ways ahead. The experience of art can be described in many ways. What intrigues us as BEQ readers is perhaps theway it enrols us in a different conversation as business ethicists (or scholars with research interests within the realm of business ethics). It is indeed reasonable to expect that we will be able to discourse in new ways when the experience of art is invited as a source of analysis, reflection and discussion. It also seems reasonable to think that in the belonging that the experience of art opens up, theway it assembles us as an event, there is a potential becoming of thought to be had —one that might bring thinking to the fringe of the already thought. As with any potentiality, this one, too, can be negated or affirmed. Spinoza would say that to the extent we seek to relate to or connect with other bodies to enhance our capacity or power to act (our conatus), we link active forces with this will and thus affirm becomings, processes of making difference happen (Deleuze 1988, 2006; Bennett 2010). For sure, our inclination to affirm new potential becomings as a result of the experience of art is a question of howpassionate we are about art, what art does to our power to be affected and our power to affect. Process philosophy suggests that we
《BEQ》开始出版艺术评论，这本身就像一个事件:杂志的关系能力扩展到新的影响，这带来了新的潜力，反过来又以新的方式聚集了新读者和现有读者。这种“事件性”表明，对于像《BEQ》这样的杂志来说，这是一个重要的举措。正如编辑们在他们的文章(den Hond and Painter 2022, 7-8)中所述，它表明，艺术可以更新我们的词汇，并通过让我们反思我们的自我形成，邀请我们同情他人，增强我们的道德想象力，为我们提供新的思考灵感(Werhane 1998;Ciulla 1998)。哲学家柏格森、海德格尔、尼采、福柯和德勒兹，还有一些人倾向于将时间、力量、权力、影响和过程问题化，他们都在职业生涯的某个阶段与艺术打交道。如果我大胆地总结一下如何表达这种接触的结果，那将是“从哪里开始?”从艺术开始吧!”在思想的茂密森林里，艺术把我们带到了一片空地上，在那里，我们有理由重新开始思考。规范的道德意志形成肯定会把我们指向经常走的道路，但也会受到影响，我们站在空地上，互动能力增强，我们意识到我们可以想象前方的多种方式。艺术的体验可以用多种方式来描述。作为BEQ的读者，吸引我们的可能是它让我们作为商业伦理学家(或对商业伦理学领域有研究兴趣的学者)参与到一场不同的对话中来的方式。当艺术的经验被邀请作为分析、反思和讨论的来源时，我们将能够以新的方式进行讨论，这确实是合理的。我们似乎也有理由认为，在艺术体验打开的归属感中，在它把我们聚集成一个事件的方式中，存在着一种潜在的思想转变——一种可能把思想带到已有思想的边缘的思想转变。与任何潜能一样，这一潜能也可以被否定或肯定。斯宾诺莎会说，在某种程度上，我们寻求与其他身体联系或联系，以增强我们的行动能力或力量(我们的conatus)，我们将积极的力量与这种意志联系起来，从而肯定变化，使差异发生的过程(德勒兹1988,2006;班尼特2010年)。当然，我们倾向于肯定艺术体验带来的新潜力，这是一个我们对艺术有多热情的问题，艺术对我们受影响的能力和我们的影响能力有什么影响。过程哲学建议我们
{"title":"Affirming an Art Review Section in BEQ","authors":"D. Hjorth","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.23","url":null,"abstract":"BEQ opening up to publishing art reviews strikes me as something like an event in itself: the journal’s relational capacity is extended to new influences, which brings new potentialities that in turn assemble new readers and existing readers in new ways. This “eventness” indicates that it is an important move for a journal like BEQ to make. It suggests, as the editors stated in their essay (den Hond and Painter 2022, 7–8), that art can renew our vocabularies and provide inspiration for thinking anew by having us reflect on our self-formation, inviting us to empathize with the other and enhance our moral imagination (Werhane 1998; Ciulla 1998). Philosophers Bergson, Heidegger, Nietzsche, Foucault and Deleuze, to mention some who were inclined to problematize time, force, power, affect and process, all engaged with art at some point in their careers. If I venture to summarize how the result of this engagement would be expressed, it would be with the slogan “Where to start? Start with art!” In the thick forest of thought, art brings us to a clearing where thinking is given a good reason to start anew. Canonical ethical will-formation surely points us in the direction of roads often taken, yet affected, we stand in the clearing with an increased capacity to interact, and we realize we can imagine multiple ways ahead. The experience of art can be described in many ways. What intrigues us as BEQ readers is perhaps theway it enrols us in a different conversation as business ethicists (or scholars with research interests within the realm of business ethics). It is indeed reasonable to expect that we will be able to discourse in new ways when the experience of art is invited as a source of analysis, reflection and discussion. It also seems reasonable to think that in the belonging that the experience of art opens up, theway it assembles us as an event, there is a potential becoming of thought to be had —one that might bring thinking to the fringe of the already thought. As with any potentiality, this one, too, can be negated or affirmed. Spinoza would say that to the extent we seek to relate to or connect with other bodies to enhance our capacity or power to act (our conatus), we link active forces with this will and thus affirm becomings, processes of making difference happen (Deleuze 1988, 2006; Bennett 2010). For sure, our inclination to affirm new potential becomings as a result of the experience of art is a question of howpassionate we are about art, what art does to our power to be affected and our power to affect. Process philosophy suggests that we","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46706894","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":"From the Editors","authors":"F. den Hond, Mollie Painter","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.24","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43096449","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}
Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs)—private governance mechanisms involving firms, civil society organizations, and other actors deliberating to set rules, such as standards or codes of conduct, with which firms comply voluntarily—have become important tools for governing global business activities and the social and environmental consequences of these activities. Yet, this growth is paralleled with concerns about MSIs’ deliberative capacity, including the limited inclusion of some marginalized stakeholders, bias toward corporate interests, and, ultimately, ineffectiveness in their role as regulators. In this article, we conceptualize MSIs as deliberative systems to open the black box of the different elements that make up the MSI polity and better understand how their deliberative capacity hinges on problems in different elements. On the basis of this conceptualization, we examine how deliberative mini-publics—forums in which a randomly selected group of individuals from a particular population engage in learning and facilitated deliberations about a topic—can improve the deliberative capacity of MSIs.
{"title":"The Role of Deliberative Mini-Publics in Improving the Deliberative Capacity of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives","authors":"S. Pek, S. Mena, Brent J Lyons","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.20","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.20","url":null,"abstract":"Multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs)—private governance mechanisms involving firms, civil society organizations, and other actors deliberating to set rules, such as standards or codes of conduct, with which firms comply voluntarily—have become important tools for governing global business activities and the social and environmental consequences of these activities. Yet, this growth is paralleled with concerns about MSIs’ deliberative capacity, including the limited inclusion of some marginalized stakeholders, bias toward corporate interests, and, ultimately, ineffectiveness in their role as regulators. In this article, we conceptualize MSIs as deliberative systems to open the black box of the different elements that make up the MSI polity and better understand how their deliberative capacity hinges on problems in different elements. On the basis of this conceptualization, we examine how deliberative mini-publics—forums in which a randomly selected group of individuals from a particular population engage in learning and facilitated deliberations about a topic—can improve the deliberative capacity of MSIs.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47852450","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}
This article reviews and criticizes Joseph Heath’s market failures approach (MFA) to business ethics. Our criticism is organized into three sections. First, we argue that, even under the ideal assumptions of perfect competition, when markets generate Pareto-efficient distributions, Heath’s approach does not rule out significant harms. Second, we show that, under nonideal conditions, the MFA is either too demanding, if efficiency is to be attained, or not sufficiently demanding, if the goal of Pareto efficiency is abandoned. Finally, we argue that Heath’s appeal to regulations and specific moral requirements as a remedy for market failures is unlikely to safeguard efficiency and exposes a number of general worries regarding the moral force of the MFA. We end this article with a constructive suggestion on how to adjust the MFA to avoid these problems while preserving its contractualist and Paretian spirit.
{"title":"What’s the Point of Efficiency? On Heath’s Market Failures Approach","authors":"Richard Endörfer, L. Larue","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.21","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews and criticizes Joseph Heath’s market failures approach (MFA) to business ethics. Our criticism is organized into three sections. First, we argue that, even under the ideal assumptions of perfect competition, when markets generate Pareto-efficient distributions, Heath’s approach does not rule out significant harms. Second, we show that, under nonideal conditions, the MFA is either too demanding, if efficiency is to be attained, or not sufficiently demanding, if the goal of Pareto efficiency is abandoned. Finally, we argue that Heath’s appeal to regulations and specific moral requirements as a remedy for market failures is unlikely to safeguard efficiency and exposes a number of general worries regarding the moral force of the MFA. We end this article with a constructive suggestion on how to adjust the MFA to avoid these problems while preserving its contractualist and Paretian spirit.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44121169","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}
The Business of Liberty is an ambitious book that aims to defend a novel account of what makes freedom valuable. It then uses that theory of liberty to shed light on issues in business ethics, business regulation, freedom of speech, and additional related topics. Philosophical discussions about liberty often follow a particular format. First, the author defends a conception of what liberty is. For instance, one might argue that liberty consists of noninterference, nondomination, the positive ability to achieve one’s goals, self-mastery, or something else. Second, the author articulates why liberty is valuable and defends claims about what kinds of protection it ought to have, if any. For instance, one might try to settle whether people have a right to that liberty or discuss how strong that right is. Third, the author defends claims about how governments or other institutions ought to respond to that liberty. For instance, one might argue that liberty requires a liberal democratic state—or forbids the state entirely. DeBruinwisely avoids the first question. Hemight in fact be comfortable, as I am, with saying that liberty refers to a variety of related things, each of which is valuable. However, he instead states that his goal is to provide an answer to the second question (what makes liberty valuable/under what conditions is it valuable?), an answer that he argues one must adopt almost regardless of which conception of liberty one defends. He argues that mere liberty, on its own, has little value unless certain conditions are met. What matters instead is that people have what he calls known freedom and acknowledged freedom. A person has known freedom, per de Bruin, to the “extent that they have knowledge concerning their choice situation” (80), including what their choices are, what options are possible but excluded or blocked for various reasons, and what the possible outcomes of these choices are. They have acknowledged freedom when their known freedom is common knowledge and institutionalized, that is, when others acknowledge that the person is free and will act to preserve, protect, and
{"title":"The Business of Liberty: Freedom and Information in Ethics, Politics, and Law, by Boudewijn de Bruin. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022. 240 pp.","authors":"J. Brennan","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.22","url":null,"abstract":"The Business of Liberty is an ambitious book that aims to defend a novel account of what makes freedom valuable. It then uses that theory of liberty to shed light on issues in business ethics, business regulation, freedom of speech, and additional related topics. Philosophical discussions about liberty often follow a particular format. First, the author defends a conception of what liberty is. For instance, one might argue that liberty consists of noninterference, nondomination, the positive ability to achieve one’s goals, self-mastery, or something else. Second, the author articulates why liberty is valuable and defends claims about what kinds of protection it ought to have, if any. For instance, one might try to settle whether people have a right to that liberty or discuss how strong that right is. Third, the author defends claims about how governments or other institutions ought to respond to that liberty. For instance, one might argue that liberty requires a liberal democratic state—or forbids the state entirely. DeBruinwisely avoids the first question. Hemight in fact be comfortable, as I am, with saying that liberty refers to a variety of related things, each of which is valuable. However, he instead states that his goal is to provide an answer to the second question (what makes liberty valuable/under what conditions is it valuable?), an answer that he argues one must adopt almost regardless of which conception of liberty one defends. He argues that mere liberty, on its own, has little value unless certain conditions are met. What matters instead is that people have what he calls known freedom and acknowledged freedom. A person has known freedom, per de Bruin, to the “extent that they have knowledge concerning their choice situation” (80), including what their choices are, what options are possible but excluded or blocked for various reasons, and what the possible outcomes of these choices are. They have acknowledged freedom when their known freedom is common knowledge and institutionalized, that is, when others acknowledge that the person is free and will act to preserve, protect, and","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43120251","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}
Adam Smith writes favorably about innovation in Wealth of Nations while writing unfavorably about a figure associated with innovation: the projector. His criticism of projectors prompts many scholars to claim that Smith disapproves of entrepreneurship. But Smith criticizes the projector not because he acts as an entrepreneur but because he fails to meet Smith’s moral standards for entrepreneurship. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith conceives of a framework for moral entrepreneurship based on prudence. The framework consists of two principles: first, approach everyday matters with the general “tenor of conduct” that governs your life and trade, and second, approach life-changing matters with prudence and justice. Recognizing that Smith is concerned with the total effect that an entrepreneurial venture has on society beyond its immediate profits opens the door to engage with contemporary research that studies the ethical and moral externalities of entrepreneurship.
{"title":"Prudent Entrepreneurship in Theory of Moral Sentiments","authors":"K. West","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.19","url":null,"abstract":"Adam Smith writes favorably about innovation in Wealth of Nations while writing unfavorably about a figure associated with innovation: the projector. His criticism of projectors prompts many scholars to claim that Smith disapproves of entrepreneurship. But Smith criticizes the projector not because he acts as an entrepreneur but because he fails to meet Smith’s moral standards for entrepreneurship. In Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith conceives of a framework for moral entrepreneurship based on prudence. The framework consists of two principles: first, approach everyday matters with the general “tenor of conduct” that governs your life and trade, and second, approach life-changing matters with prudence and justice. Recognizing that Smith is concerned with the total effect that an entrepreneurial venture has on society beyond its immediate profits opens the door to engage with contemporary research that studies the ethical and moral externalities of entrepreneurship.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45712543","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}
In this study, we theorize humanness in organizations as a property of practice. We apply practice theory to examine how humanness becomes enacted in a business organization as people prioritize organizational and individual ends in their work activities. Our empirical case study examines the everyday interactions of development team members in an R&D organization of a large Nordic cooperative. Challenging the dominant individualist and structuralist approaches in humanness and human dignity studies, we identify and locate four different aspects of humanness in organizational practices. As a result, we show how the emergence of humanness is an ongoing process that transpires through two mechanisms: site shifting and reconciliation; that is, people shift between different sites of the social, consisting of different sets of practices with underlying disparate assumptions of humanness, which requires reconciliation. These findings provide a basis for an alternative theorizing of humanness in organizations.
{"title":"Site-seeing Humanness in Organizations","authors":"Tuure Haarjärvi, Sari Laari-Salmela","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.12","url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we theorize humanness in organizations as a property of practice. We apply practice theory to examine how humanness becomes enacted in a business organization as people prioritize organizational and individual ends in their work activities. Our empirical case study examines the everyday interactions of development team members in an R&D organization of a large Nordic cooperative. Challenging the dominant individualist and structuralist approaches in humanness and human dignity studies, we identify and locate four different aspects of humanness in organizational practices. As a result, we show how the emergence of humanness is an ongoing process that transpires through two mechanisms: site shifting and reconciliation; that is, people shift between different sites of the social, consisting of different sets of practices with underlying disparate assumptions of humanness, which requires reconciliation. These findings provide a basis for an alternative theorizing of humanness in organizations.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46579430","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 3 Cover and Front matter","authors":"F. D. Hond, Bradley R. Agle, Laura Albareda","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.17","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42950483","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}
Albert Einstein, Letter of October 1944 to Mrs. Born, in J. Berger Photocopies: Encounters (1997: 72) Guest Editors Mar Pérezts, Emlyon Business School;OCE Research Centre Marianna Fotaki, Warwick Business School Yuliya Shymko, Audencia Business School Gazi Islam, Grenoble Ecole de Management;IREGE Overview A fundamental question of organizational ethics revolves around how life and death are collectively organized (Elias, 1985;Agamben, 1998). [...]as organizational ethics scholars, we must examine how our ideas operate within complex social and natural worlds, for what ends, and which support they render to different forms of being and of living. The impact of dominant organizational paradigms varies across social groups and non-human forms of life, leading to new inequalities and amplifying pre-existing ones across geographical and political differences (Biehl, 2005;Bauman, 2014;Fotaki & Prasad, 2015). In line with the disciplinary and thematic scope of the Business Ethics Quarterly, we invite scholars from a variety of perspectives to consider the roles of (business) organizations and organizing in the ethics of life and death, as it plays out in light of growing inequalities and recent global phenomena such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Black Lives Matter, refugee crises, the rise of authoritarianism, global political conflicts, wars, and climate change.
{"title":"Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue on: Organizational Ethics of Life and Death","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/beq.2022.16","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2022.16","url":null,"abstract":"Albert Einstein, Letter of October 1944 to Mrs. Born, in J. Berger Photocopies: Encounters (1997: 72) Guest Editors Mar Pérezts, Emlyon Business School;OCE Research Centre Marianna Fotaki, Warwick Business School Yuliya Shymko, Audencia Business School Gazi Islam, Grenoble Ecole de Management;IREGE Overview A fundamental question of organizational ethics revolves around how life and death are collectively organized (Elias, 1985;Agamben, 1998). [...]as organizational ethics scholars, we must examine how our ideas operate within complex social and natural worlds, for what ends, and which support they render to different forms of being and of living. The impact of dominant organizational paradigms varies across social groups and non-human forms of life, leading to new inequalities and amplifying pre-existing ones across geographical and political differences (Biehl, 2005;Bauman, 2014;Fotaki & Prasad, 2015). In line with the disciplinary and thematic scope of the Business Ethics Quarterly, we invite scholars from a variety of perspectives to consider the roles of (business) organizations and organizing in the ethics of life and death, as it plays out in light of growing inequalities and recent global phenomena such as the COVID-19 pandemic, Black Lives Matter, refugee crises, the rise of authoritarianism, global political conflicts, wars, and climate change.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42176681","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：