Lifesizing Entrepreneurship: Lonergan, Bias and The Role of Business in Society

Journal of Business Ethics 58 (1-3):219-225 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

. In an era of downsizing and disposable ethics, there is a need to redefine the role of business in society. Central to such a discussion is the frame of reference of the entrepreneur. A traditional business model defines entrepreneurship based on endowing resources with new wealth producing capabilities. This paper defines entrepreneurship as a calling to endow resources with new value. In support of the impact such a distinction would have on repositioning the role of business in society, the paper weaves together writings from the Pope, Drucker, and Lonergan, with emphasis on applying Lonergan’s discussion of bias to the discussion of ethics in business. Adapting the term, “lifesizing”, which was coined by the author in a previous article, to entrepreneurship, the paper takes the position that lifesized entrepreneurship can act as a catalyst similar to Lonergan’s cosmopolis and play a key role in countering bias and repositioning the role of business in society.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,031

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Ethics, Management, and the Existentialist Entrepreneur. Gilbert - 2002 - The Ruffin Series of the Society for Business Ethics 3:113-124.
Social Entrepreneurship in the Global Perspective.Hyuk Kim - 2012 - Proceedings of the International Association for Business and Society 23:98-110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
30 (#550,221)

6 months
5 (#711,233)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Insight.Bernard J. F. Lonergan - 1957 - New York,: Philosophical Library.
Lifesizing in an era of downsizing: An ethical quandary. [REVIEW]Robert A. Miller - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (15):1693-1700.

Add more references