This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.

4 found
  1. The Corporate Baby in the Bathwater: Why Proposals to Abolish Corporate Personhood Are Misguided.David Gindis & Abraham A. Singer - 2023 - Journal of Business Ethics 183 (4):983-997.
    The fear that business corporations have claimed unwarranted constitutional protections which have entrenched corporate power has produced a broad social movement demanding that constitutional rights be restricted to human beings and corporate personhood be abolished. We develop a critique of these proposals organized around the three salient rationales we identify in the accompanying narrative, which we argue reflect a narrow focus on large business corporations, a misunderstanding of the legal concept of personhood, and a failure to distinguish different kinds of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
  2. Do I Think Corporations Should Be Able to Vote Now?Kenneth Silver - 2018 - Business Ethics Journal Review 6 (4):18-23.
    Many proponents of corporate agency take corporations to be responsible for their conduct, but few take them to merit rights over and above the rights of their members. Hasnas (2016) argues that, given a widely-held view of liberal political theory, corporate agency entails that corporations should have the right to vote. In response, I show that there are problems in appealing to liberal political theory, and that the view of voting Hasnas actually endorses need not be accepted. Should it be, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Business-Inflicted Social Harm.Edmund F. Byrne - 1998 - In Yeager Hudson (ed.), Technology, Morality and Social Policy. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 55-73.
    Businesses cause social harm, meaning harm to society at large and not just to those with whom a business is contractually linked. Evidence introduced: normative claims that businesses should be "socially responsible"; positive claims that they contribute to social well-being; and negative claims that they are sometimes military-like, causing extensive harm for which no one is held personally responsible. The latter point to corporate survivalism, which acknowledges no mandatory civil responsibilities. Neither law nor social pressure has yet counteracted this mind (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Export citation  
  4. The social dimension of moral responsibility: Taking organizations seriously.David T. Risser - 1996 - Journal of Social Philosophy 27 (1):189-207.
    This article provides a justification for holding complex organizations morally responsible and shows how this moral dimension is implicit in the concept of power. Several objections to organizational moral responsibility are addressed, and a new view of complex organizations as agents which are morally responsible, but do not possess moral rights, is defended.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
    Export citation