Displaying: 1-20 of 140 documents

0.053 sec

1. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Norman E. Bowie A Kantian Theory of Capitalism
2. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Notes On Contributors
3. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
R. Edward Freeman Poverty and the Politics of Capitalism
4. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Patricia H. Werhane Introduction: Ruffin Series: New Approaches to Business Ethics
5. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Donna J. Wood Ingroups and Outgroups: What Psychology Doesn’t Say
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
I am foregoing the discussant's critical role in favor of a short examination of how one sociologist's imagination is tantalized and irritated by some of the ideas and interconnections of Professor Messick's paper. The question is, when it comes to ingroups and outgroups, why does race matter? Why does sex or gender matter? I will briefly make four points about sociobiology, favoritism toward the ingroup, hostility toward the outgroup, and finally, the conflict theorist's favorite topic - resource allocation.
6. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Edwin M. Hartman Altruism, Ingroups, and Fairness: Comments on David Messick’s “Social Categories and Business Ethics”
7. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
George G. Brenkert Marketing and the Vulnerable
8. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
David M. Messick Social Categories and Business Ethics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
In this article, I want to draw attention to one strand ofthe complex web of processes that are involved when people group others, including themselves, into social categories. I will focus on the tendency to treat members of one's own group more favorably than nonmembers, a tendency that has been called ingroup favoritism. The structure of the article has three parts. First I will offer anevolutionary argument as to why ingroup favoritism, or something very much like it, is required by theories of the evolution of altruism. I will then review some of the basic social psychological research findings dealing with social categorization generally, and ingroup favoritism specifically. Finally, I will examine two problems in business ethics from the point of view of ingroup favoritism to suggest ways in which social psychological principles and findings may be mobilized to help solve problems of racial or gender discrimination in business contexts.
9. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Patricia H. Werhane Moral Imagination and the Search for Ethical Decision-Making in Management
10. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Andrew C. Wicks How Kantian a Theory of Kantian Capitalism?: A Response to Bowie’s Ruffin Lecture
11. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
R. Edward Freeman Introduction
12. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Richard Rorty Can American Egalitarianism Survive a Globalized Economy?
13. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Joanne B. Ciulla Imagination, Fantasy, Wishful Thinking and Truth
14. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
LaRue Tone Hosmer Lessons From The Wreck Of The Exxon Valdez: The Need For Imagination, Empathy, And Courage
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Investigations of large scale industrial accidents generally take one of two alternative approaches to identifying the cause or causes of those destructive events. The first is legal analysis, which focuses on the mechanical failure or human error that immediately preceded the accident. The second is socio-technical reasoning, which centers on the complexities of the interlocking technological and organizational systems that brought about the accident. Both are retrospective, and provide little insight into the means of avoiding industrial accidents in the future. This article looks at six levels of managerial responsibility within a firm, and suggests specific changes at all levels that should logically help in the prevention or mitigation of these high impactllow probability events. The most basicneed, however, is for imagination, empathy, and courage at the most senior level of the firm.
15. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
John Danley Beyond Managerialism: After the Death of the Corporate Statesperson
16. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 1
Deborah Vidaver-Cohen Moral Imagination in Organizational Problem-Solving: An Institutional Perspective
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
This essay responds to Patricia Werhane's 1994 Ruffin Lecture address, "Moral Imagination and the Search for Ethical Decision-making in Management," using institutional theory as an analytical framework to explore conditions that either inhibit or promote moral imagination in organizational problem-solving. Implications of the analysis for managing organizational change and for business ethics theory development are proposed.
17. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 2
Lisa H. Newton A Scaffold For Muir: A Logic for Environmental Protection
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Everyone knows that somehow we must protect the natural environment as part of the ethical imperatives of doing business, especially in the era of globalization of business. But where, actually, do we find the structure of ethical imperatives that will support that “must”? The drawbacks of several candidates, some of them discussed in papers elsewhere in this volume, are considered, then supplemented with the Japanese concept of kyosei as supplying a missing link between ethics and the land. In the end, some questions are raised about the possibility of success of the entire environmental enterprise in face of the provisions of global trade agreements.
18. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 2
Vivian E. Thomson Getting the Lead Out: Grab-Bag Ethics in Environmental Policy Making
19. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 2
Lee E. Preston Global Economy/Global Environment: Relationships and Regimes
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
The purpose of this paper is to set the stage by presenting a sketch of the global economic setting within which the environmental issues, which are our main concerns here, have arisen. It is important to note that this is also the setting within which any human, social and technological responses to these issues and concerns win have to be developed and implemented. There is no use thinking about arrangements that will work only in some other world. This world-the Planet Earth, with all its demographic, physical and climatological characteristics—is the only one we have to work with.
20. The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics: Volume > 2
Edward Stead, Jean Garner Earth: A Spiritual Stakeholder
abstract | view |  rights & permissions
Assigning the moniker stakeholder to the planet has stirred a rather interesting debate in recent years. Proponents have insisted that the Earth is both the ultimate source of economic resources and the ultimate sink for economic wastes, meaning that it “affects or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46). They have said that giving the Earth stakeholder status can effectively tie the ecological health of the planet to the economic survival of the firm, and they have demonstrated this by focusing primarily on the economic benefits which can accrue to firms that effectively respond to the ecological concerns of regulators, consumers, investors, lenders, insurers, and so forth. However, others have questioned assigning the Earth stakeholder status. They have said that doing so convolutes the definition of stakeholder too much by expanding it to something other than “person[s] and groups” (Freeman, 1984, p. 46), and they have said that referring to the planet as a stakeholder is an idealistic view which defies the realities of the relationship between economic activity and the Entropy Law. Regardless of the side, the arguments in this debate have focused primarily at the economic level. Does the Earth’s central place in humanity’s economic survival suffice to give it stakeholder status? Does the Earth have voices on boards of directors? Is the underlying assumption made by those who advocate giving the Earth stakeholder status—that economic activity is ecologically sustainable—truly reflective of the relationship between economics and entropy? However, for us this debate took an interesting turn away from the economic level at the 1997 Ruffin Lectures in Business Ethics when Ian Mitroff said, “The Earth is a stakeholder, but it is a spiritual stakeholder.”