Gods Are Still in Business-Introduction to the Symposium: God and Management
The relationship between God and management is mostly discussed in terms of the application of religious principles and virtues to business. This is regularly covered by studies in various areas of business ethics, leadership, and human resources, but little has been done to study the implications for management of the wide variety of theological, ontological, metaphysical, and epistemological perspectives on God. This is precisely the theoretical gap the symposium “God and Management” aims to reduce by contributing to a corpus of literature parallel to mainstream discussions of embedding spirituality and faith in business ethics. The authors of the articles in this symposium propose to take a step back from the practical implications of faith in business, with the aim of presenting a more general and abstract understanding of the philosophical and theological implications of religion in management. The key questions formulated in the call for papers made by Mark Dibben and Graham K. Henning for the 2017 Philosophy of Management Conference were: What role does God play in a managerial choice? If there is a role, what are its influences on or what is its confluence with the managerial choice? Is God’s existence essential or relevant to management? The articles selected are intended to stimulate discussions about theism, its meaning, and influences on management theories and practices.
- Revue(s) Philosophy of Management, 18, 3, 293-302
Pinning down the social license to operate (SLO): The problem of normative complexity
The ‘social license to operate’ (SLO) concept, whilst ubiquitous in industry and academia, to this day, continues to defy clear definition. This ambiguity encourages the proliferation of conflicting claims to such a license and complicates the assessment of their legitimacy. Observing that a dimension of SLO's ambiguity is normative, this paper seeks to explore this normativity aspect further, with a view to discerning the disagreements on what makes an SLO legitimate and what delegitimizes it. The legitimacy gap in SLO discussions is illustrated in light of a case study from the Australian minerals and energy sector and explained in the context of the normative complexity surrounding the SLO construct, which seems to limit the transferability of findings from the growing number of SLO studies. As possible means for addressing this normative complexity the conceptual widening, approximation and standardization of the SLO are proposed in an attempt to overcome the stalemate resulting from competing social license claims and social license interpretations.
- Co-auteur(s) Brueckner M., EABRASU M.
- Revue(s) Resources Policy, 59, 2018, 217-226
- Classement(s) CNRS 3
Cheating in Business: A Metaethical Perspective
Although the managerial practice of cheating spans complex and heterogeneous situations (from deception and trickery to fraud and swindling), most business ethics scholars consider that the very idea of cheating is indefensible on moral grounds, and quickly dismiss it as wrongdoing. This paper proposes to fine-tune this conventional moral assessment by arguing that some forms of cheating can be justified—or at least excused. To do so, it starts with a value-free definition of cheating that covers a wide diversity of situations: “breaking the rules while deliberately leading or allowing others to think they have been respected.” While using this definition at the metaethical level, the paper contends that the moral assessment of cheating depends on the obligation to comply with the rules. There are rules which do not entail moral obligations, and there are special circumstances where other more important obligations override the obligation to comply with the rules. Furthermore, the paper argues that respecting the penalty rules also influences the moral assessment of cheating on the rules. The key interest of this endeavor lies in contributing to building a more solid theoretical framework for the study of cheating in management, which may replace our common prejudices and basic intuitions on this matter.
- Revue(s) Journal of Business Ethics, 2018, 1-14 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4003-2
- Classement(s) FNEGE 1, CNRS 2
Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Methodological limits of performance‐oriented studies in CSR
This paper inquires into the possibility of establishing a causal link between social performance (SP) and financial performance (FP) in corporate social responsibility (CSR). It shows that this endeavor is limited by several biasing factors (such as time horizons, sample choices and the tools chosen to measure SP and FP) and faces the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this), which indicates that a sequence of events does not necessarily establish a causal link. The paper contributes to the methodological literature in CSR currently focused on empirical tests aiming to discern the linkages between SP and FP, both by emphasizing the interest in interpreting and justifying SP and by suggesting a redirection of empirical efforts towards the understanding of entrepreneurial preference for a specific type of SP.
- Revue(s) Business Ethics: A European Review, 2015, 24, 11-23
- Classement(s) FNEGE 3
Rothbard’s and Hoppe’s justifications of libertarianism: A critique
Murray N. Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe build their libertarian theory of justice on two axioms concerning self-ownership and homesteading, which are bolstered by two key arguments: reductio ad absurdum and performative contradiction. Each of these arguments is designed to demonstrate that libertarianism is the only theory of justice that can be justified. If either of these arguments were valid, it would prove the libertarian claim that the state is an unjust political arrangement. Giving due weight to the importance of the libertarian anarchist claim, this article exposes and criticizes the arguments that substantiate it.
- Revue(s) Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 2013, 12, 3, 288-307
- Classement(s) CNRS 2
Moral disagreements in business
This book disassembles the moral assessment of business practices into its constituent parts to identify and clarify the four key concepts that form the basis of important moral disagreements in business: ‘personhood,’ ‘ownership,’ ‘harm,’ and ‘consent.’ ‘Moral bottom lines’ are those fundamental concepts in business ethics that ultimately account for our most resilient moral claims and unsurpassable convictions, and exploring them provides essential insights into the grounds on which we disagree in business ethics. This analysis is useful for students in business schools looking to understand fundamental moral disagreements in business and for practitioners interested in connecting practice with their own moral intuitions. The book also challenges scholars of business ethics by arguing that we can reduce business ethics disagreements to these four issues.
- Editeur(s) Springer, 2019