We address how to ethically evaluate workplace practices when workplace behavioral norms conflict with employees’ attitudes toward those norms, which, according to research on psychological contract violations, regularly occurs. Drawing on Scanlonian contractualism, we introduce the intersubjective reflection process (IR process). The IR process ethically evaluates workplace practices according to whether parties to a workplace practice have intersubjectively valid grounds to veto the practice. We present normative and empirical justification for this process and apply the IR process to accounts of workplace moral dilemmas. We end by identifying future directions for research related to the IR process.
{"title":"When Workplace Norms Conflict: Using Intersubjective Reflection to Guide Ethical Decision-Making","authors":"Tobey K. Scharding, Danielle E. Warren","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.44","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.44","url":null,"abstract":"We address how to ethically evaluate workplace practices when workplace behavioral norms conflict with employees’ attitudes toward those norms, which, according to research on psychological contract violations, regularly occurs. Drawing on Scanlonian contractualism, we introduce the intersubjective reflection process (IR process). The IR process ethically evaluates workplace practices according to whether parties to a workplace practice have intersubjectively valid grounds to veto the practice. We present normative and empirical justification for this process and apply the IR process to accounts of workplace moral dilemmas. We end by identifying future directions for research related to the IR process.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"33 1","pages":"352 - 380"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49507658","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}
Alternative currencies are means of payment that circulate alongside—as an alternative or complement to—official currencies. While these currencies have existed for a long time, both society and academia have shown a renewed interest in their potential to decentralize the governance of monetary affairs and to bring people and organizations together in more ethical or sustainable ways. This article is a review of the ethical and philosophical implications of these alternative monetary projects. We first discuss various classifications of these currencies before analyzing the ethical challenges linked to the way they tackle social and environmental issues. We also examine the incentive-based and coercive mechanisms used by these currencies from an ethical perspective and debate the promises and perils of monetary decentralization and democracy. We conclude by identifying an agenda for future research.
{"title":"The Ethics of Alternative Currencies","authors":"L. Larue, Camille Meyer, M. Hudon, J. Sandberg","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.52","url":null,"abstract":"Alternative currencies are means of payment that circulate alongside—as an alternative or complement to—official currencies. While these currencies have existed for a long time, both society and academia have shown a renewed interest in their potential to decentralize the governance of monetary affairs and to bring people and organizations together in more ethical or sustainable ways. This article is a review of the ethical and philosophical implications of these alternative monetary projects. We first discuss various classifications of these currencies before analyzing the ethical challenges linked to the way they tackle social and environmental issues. We also examine the incentive-based and coercive mechanisms used by these currencies from an ethical perspective and debate the promises and perils of monetary decentralization and democracy. We conclude by identifying an agenda for future research.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"32 1","pages":"299 - 321"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45797684","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. Beccarini, Daniel Beunza, F. Ferraro, Andreas G. F. Hoepner
How is the tension between conflict and deliberation resolved in shareholder engagement? We address this question by studying shareholder engagement as a deliberative process with three stages: establishing dialogue, solution development, and solution implementation. We theorize that two interactionist mechanisms, deliberative interaction and the voicing of disagreement, play different roles at different stages of the process. We test our hypotheses with a proprietary database of 169 environmental, social, and governance engagements with US public companies over 2007–12. We find that while deliberative interaction does not help advance the engagement process, it positively moderates the effect of disagreement in the solution development stage. By contrast, in the solution implementation stage, deliberative interaction amplifies the negative effect of disagreement, thus hindering progress in the engagement. Our article contributes to shareholder engagement, deliberation theory, and interactionist organization theory by establishing that engagement effectiveness is an interactional achievement shaped by both deliberation and disagreement.
{"title":"The Contingent Role of Conflict: Deliberative Interaction and Disagreement in Shareholder Engagement","authors":"I. Beccarini, Daniel Beunza, F. Ferraro, Andreas G. F. Hoepner","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.46","url":null,"abstract":"How is the tension between conflict and deliberation resolved in shareholder engagement? We address this question by studying shareholder engagement as a deliberative process with three stages: establishing dialogue, solution development, and solution implementation. We theorize that two interactionist mechanisms, deliberative interaction and the voicing of disagreement, play different roles at different stages of the process. We test our hypotheses with a proprietary database of 169 environmental, social, and governance engagements with US public companies over 2007–12. We find that while deliberative interaction does not help advance the engagement process, it positively moderates the effect of disagreement in the solution development stage. By contrast, in the solution implementation stage, deliberative interaction amplifies the negative effect of disagreement, thus hindering progress in the engagement. Our article contributes to shareholder engagement, deliberation theory, and interactionist organization theory by establishing that engagement effectiveness is an interactional achievement shaped by both deliberation and disagreement.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"33 1","pages":"26 - 66"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47940660","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}
Responsible innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) calls for public deliberation: well-informed “deep democratic” debate that involves actors from the public, private, and civil society sectors in joint efforts to critically address the goals and means of AI. Adopting such an approach constitutes a challenge, however, due to the opacity of AI and strong knowledge boundaries between experts and citizens. This undermines trust in AI and undercuts key conditions for deliberation. We approach this challenge as a problem of situating the knowledge of actors from the AI industry within a deliberative system. We develop a new framework of responsibilities for AI innovation as well as a deliberative governance approach for enacting these responsibilities. In elucidating this approach, we show how actors from the AI industry can most effectively engage with experts and nonexperts in different social venues to facilitate well-informed judgments on opaque AI systems and thus effectuate their democratic governance.
{"title":"Deep Learning Meets Deep Democracy: Deliberative Governance and Responsible Innovation in Artificial Intelligence","authors":"Alexander Buhmann, Christian Fieseler","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.42","url":null,"abstract":"Responsible innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) calls for public deliberation: well-informed “deep democratic” debate that involves actors from the public, private, and civil society sectors in joint efforts to critically address the goals and means of AI. Adopting such an approach constitutes a challenge, however, due to the opacity of AI and strong knowledge boundaries between experts and citizens. This undermines trust in AI and undercuts key conditions for deliberation. We approach this challenge as a problem of situating the knowledge of actors from the AI industry within a deliberative system. We develop a new framework of responsibilities for AI innovation as well as a deliberative governance approach for enacting these responsibilities. In elucidating this approach, we show how actors from the AI industry can most effectively engage with experts and nonexperts in different social venues to facilitate well-informed judgments on opaque AI systems and thus effectuate their democratic governance.","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"33 1","pages":"146 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42254057","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}
F inancial markets may be mercurial in their own right, but Ken-Hou Lin and Megan Tobias Neely seem to view finance a bit like mercury itself: it can be useful, but it’s dangerous and makes for bad medicine. Though finance has been around for thousands of years, the book charts the recent rise and proliferation of finance and financial markets—primarily in the United States over the last forty years—and considers its connection to inequality in society. The book makes the case for thinking that this process of financialization of our economy is in some significant ways responsible for growing and deleterious inequality, directly opposing an ideology that takes access to finance to provide the solution to such inequality. Lin and Neely define financialization as “the wide-ranging reversal of the role of finance from a secondary, supportive activity to a principal driver of the economy” (10, emphasis original). They argue that such a reversal has occurred in the United States, and they set about to show this through the growth of the financial sector itself, the influence of finance within the corporate world, and the burden of debt and financial planning placed onto individual households. They maintain that financialization thus understood is bad in itself insofar as it mistakes the source of economic value, but it is also instrumentally bad insofar as these mechanisms needlessly exacerbate inequality. They argue that these processes unfold in a number of ways. Financial institutions extract economic rents far in excess of their value. Such institutions engage in predatory practices, complexifying their products while leveraging political power to lobby for less regulation. Meanwhile, corporations have been distracted from delivering value to customers and security to employees; instead, they are pressured to please shareholders and grow financial wings themselves. Meanwhile, households have become increasingly rackedwith debt, andwe are told that a failure to get out of debt signifies poor saving habits and a lack of financial literacy. For Lin and Neely, the 2008 financial crisis was a largely missed opportunity to confront and reform these practices. Instead, governments sought to restore the status quo, confronting “too big to fail” with acceptance and regulation to avoid failure. Lin and Neely maintain that, in so doing, we have collectively failed to challenge this central, overbearing, and self-serving role that finance plays in the economy. Taken together,Divested is a powerful catharsis of the current economic moment. It uses resources from history, economics, sociology, and beyond to craft a narrative for how finance came to have such a central place in our economy (and in our lives). And it is not shy in communicating that this is an unhealthy and ultimately 203 Book Reviews
{"title":"Divested: Inequality in the Age of Finance, by Ken-Hou Lin and Megan Tobias Neely. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. 232 pp.","authors":"Kenneth Silver","doi":"10.1017/beq.2021.50","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.50","url":null,"abstract":"F inancial markets may be mercurial in their own right, but Ken-Hou Lin and Megan Tobias Neely seem to view finance a bit like mercury itself: it can be useful, but it’s dangerous and makes for bad medicine. Though finance has been around for thousands of years, the book charts the recent rise and proliferation of finance and financial markets—primarily in the United States over the last forty years—and considers its connection to inequality in society. The book makes the case for thinking that this process of financialization of our economy is in some significant ways responsible for growing and deleterious inequality, directly opposing an ideology that takes access to finance to provide the solution to such inequality. Lin and Neely define financialization as “the wide-ranging reversal of the role of finance from a secondary, supportive activity to a principal driver of the economy” (10, emphasis original). They argue that such a reversal has occurred in the United States, and they set about to show this through the growth of the financial sector itself, the influence of finance within the corporate world, and the burden of debt and financial planning placed onto individual households. They maintain that financialization thus understood is bad in itself insofar as it mistakes the source of economic value, but it is also instrumentally bad insofar as these mechanisms needlessly exacerbate inequality. They argue that these processes unfold in a number of ways. Financial institutions extract economic rents far in excess of their value. Such institutions engage in predatory practices, complexifying their products while leveraging political power to lobby for less regulation. Meanwhile, corporations have been distracted from delivering value to customers and security to employees; instead, they are pressured to please shareholders and grow financial wings themselves. Meanwhile, households have become increasingly rackedwith debt, andwe are told that a failure to get out of debt signifies poor saving habits and a lack of financial literacy. For Lin and Neely, the 2008 financial crisis was a largely missed opportunity to confront and reform these practices. Instead, governments sought to restore the status quo, confronting “too big to fail” with acceptance and regulation to avoid failure. Lin and Neely maintain that, in so doing, we have collectively failed to challenge this central, overbearing, and self-serving role that finance plays in the economy. Taken together,Divested is a powerful catharsis of the current economic moment. It uses resources from history, economics, sociology, and beyond to craft a narrative for how finance came to have such a central place in our economy (and in our lives). And it is not shy in communicating that this is an unhealthy and ultimately 203 Book Reviews","PeriodicalId":48031,"journal":{"name":"Business Ethics Quarterly","volume":"32 1","pages":"203 - 207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43500150","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 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":"32 1","pages":"1 - 11"},"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}
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":"32 1","pages":"169 - 198"},"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":"32 1","pages":"199 - 202"},"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}
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：