Abstract:After a decade of intensive debate, stakeholder ideas have come to exert a significant influence on academic management thinking, but normative stakeholder theory itself appears to be in considerable disarray. This paper attempts to untangle the confusion and to prepare the ground for a more productive approach to the normative stakeholder problem. The paper identifies three distinct kinds of normative stakeholder theory and three different levels of claim that can be made by such theories, and uses this classification to argue (...) that stakeholder theorists have consistently pitched their sights either too high or too low to engage effectively with the rival shareholder theory. To the extent that they have their sights too high they have also undermined their own position by sacrificing credibility and introducing major problems of derivation. (shrink)

We live in a 'bimoral' society, in which people govern their lives by two contrasting sets of principles. On the one hand there are the principles associated with traditional morality. Although these allow a modicum of self-interest, their emphasis is on our duties and obligations to others: to treat people honestly and with respect, to treat them fairly and without prejudice, to help and are for them when needed, and ultimately, to put their needs above their own. On the other (...) hand there are the principles associated with the entrepreneurial self-interest. These also impose obligations, but of a much more limited kind. Their emphasis is competitive rather than cooperative: to advance our own interests rather than to meet the needs of others. Both sets of principles have always been present in society but in recent years, traditional moral authorities have lost much of their force and the morality of self-interest has acquired a much greater social legitimacy, over a much wider field of behavior, than ever before. The result of this is that in many situations it is no longer at all apparent which set of principles should take precedence. In this book, John Hendry traces the cultural and historical origins of the 'bimoral' society have also led to new, more flexible forms of organizing, which have released people's entrepreneurial energies and significantly enhanced the creative capacities of business. Working within these organizations, however is fraught with moral tensions as obligations and self-interest conflict and managers are pulled in all sorts of different directions. Managing them successfully poses major new challenges of leadership, and 'moral' management, as the technical problem-solving that previously characterized managerial work is increasingly accomplished by technology and market mechanisms. The key role of management becomes the political and moral one of determining purposes and priorities, reconciling divergent interests, and nurturing trust in interpersonal relationships. Exploring these tensions and challenges, Hendry identifies new issues of contemporary management and puts recognized issues into context. He also explores the challenges posed for a post-traditional society as it seeks to regulate and govern an increasingly powerful and global business sector. (shrink)

Most writers on international business ethics adopt a universalist perspective, but the traditional expression of problems in terms of a discrepancy between (superior) home country and (inferior) host country values makes it difficult to preserve the symmetry required by a universalizability criterion. In this paper a critique of Donaldson’s (1989) theory is used to illustrate some of the ways in which ethnocentric assumptions can enter into a supposedly universalist argument. A number of suggestions are then made for improving Donaldson’s approach (...) by careful attention to the requirement of universalizability, expressed in a contractarian theory in the form of agent symmetry or reciprocity. (shrink)

A number of the most influential presentations of normative stakeholder theory are based upon an economic model of the firm as a nexus of contracts. In this paper I argue that the use of such a model to address moral issues is both logically and practically problematic and effectively undermines the stakeholder position. I then sketch out the key characteristics of an alternative, social relationships model of the firm, and show how this might provide a basis for the development of (...) a more relevant and robust version of normative stakeholder theory than has hitherto been proposed. (shrink)

A number of the most influential presentations of normative stakeholder theory are based upon an economic model of the firm as a nexus of contracts. In this paper I argue that the use of such a model to address moral issues is both logically and practically problematic and effectively undermines the stakeholder position. I then sketch out the key characteristics of an alternative, social relationships model of the firm, and show how this might provide a basis for the development of (...) a more relevant and robust version of normative stakeholder theory than has hitherto been proposed. (shrink)

(1980). The development of attitudes to the wave-particle duality of light and quantum theory, 1900–1920. Annals of Science: Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 59-79.

Ethics and Finance: An Introduction provides a comprehensive and accessible introduction to the ethical issues raised by modern finance. Drawing carefully on ethical theory and with frequent use of case studies, it includes an analysis of the global financial system and its regulation and control, as well as a detailed analysis of the financial crisis. Chapters on specific areas of finance practice cover all the major financial scandals of recent times, from mis-selling to market manipulation and from insider trading to (...) bankers' bonuses, as well as much more positive developments. From micro finance to derivatives trading, the book provides a careful and balanced treatment designed to help finance students and practitioners approach this sensitive topic in a thoughtful and constructive way. No prior knowledge of ethics or finance is required, and the book will be invaluable to students, finance teachers, practitioners and regulators. (shrink)

This is a reprinted excerpt from Sorell and Hendry, Business Ethics (Butterworth Heinemann, 1994).

This paper discusses the emergence of the concepts of fusion as an energy source and of the controlled fusion reactor. These concepts are shown to have arisen from the bringing together of several different branches of physics, notably nuclear physics, astrophysics, and gas discharge physics, in the period between the two world wars. By the late 1930s, enough information had become available for the possibility of a controlled fusion device to be explored, and a number of physicists seem to have (...) recognized this independently. Such a possibility was the subject of discussion at Los Alamos during and immediately after the war, but the first detailed proposals to be recorded seem to be those of G. P. Thomson and P. C. Thonemann, both working in Britain in the middle to late 1940s. These proposals, which led to the setting up in Britain of the first coherent programme of controlled fusion research, are outlined and discussed. (shrink)

It is traditionally held that Mayer denied the existence of a solar motion while Herschel and Prévost, using much the same data, demonstrated its presence. The existence of such diverse conclusions has not, however, been satisfactorily explained. It is shown here that the supposed disagreement as to the existence of a solar motion is illusory. Mayer did not make the denial attributed to him; and the estimates of Herschel and Prévost do not represent responses to the factual question as to (...) whether or not the Sun moved, but rather those to the heuristic question as to what value of the probable solar motion one should assume. The analyses behind these estimates are reported and shown to be well matched to the combination of question and available data. The conceptual context of Herschel's and Prévost's work is discussed. And a brief comparison is made with the later investigations into the systematic motions of the stars. (shrink)

Religious beliefs are often criticized as lacking the rational justification we expect of factual knowledge claims. In this article I suggest that while religious believers do often claim ‘knowledge’ of the ‘truth’ they typically use these words in traditional, and indeed still current, senses that are quite different from the senses assumed both by their atheist critics and by standard theories of knowledge. The claims are not primarily claims of factual accuracy, subject to the norms of what philosophers call theoretical (...) reasoning, but claims of acquaintance with what can be trusted in the making of practical judgements, and subject to the rather different norms of practical reasoning. This does not exempt them from rational critique, but it does call for a different kind of critique from that usually offered. (shrink)

Atheist critiques of religious belief tend to assume that this belief is of broadly the same kind as that treated by philosophers: a disposition to take as true the content of some propositional knowledge claim. I argue here that it is not. What is primarily meant by ‘belief’ in a religious context refers to something quite different, and while this kind of belief sometimes implies belief in the philosophers’ sense it doesn't always do so, and even when it does it (...) is with significant qualifications. Similar considerations apply to other words, such as ‘truth’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘meaning’ itself. In each case atheists tend to impose on religious discourse a particular philosophical meaning rather different from that typically intended.Export citation. (shrink)

Over the last twenty years the organization of business activity appears to have shifted from an emphasis on bureaucratic organizations toward an emphasis on market structures. Economic self-interest has acquired a new social legitimacy, and the force of traditional moral authorities has waned. In these circumstances the work of Emile Durkheim on the problematics of business ethics and the impact of a culture of self-interest on the stability of society, work that has hitherto been neglected by the business ethics community, (...) acquires a new relevance. In this paper we review Durkheim''s problematization of business ethics, establish its relevance for the contemporary world, and use it to develop an empirical research agenda for the contemporary sociology of business ethics. (shrink)