Kenneth E. Goodpaster

If we read the central message of Caritas in Veritate (CV) through the lens of contemporary business ethics—and the encyclical does seem to invite such a reading (CV 40–41, and 45–47)—there is first of all a diagnosis of a crisis. Then, we are offered a response to the diagnosis: charity in truth , “the principle around which the Church’s social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action .” (CV 6) In business ethics, the norms of personal and (especially) corporate responsibility are the natural correlates to “the criteria that govern moral action.” Using this as a point of departure, I propose to relate some recent scholarship in business ethics to the message of CV — with the suggestion that there is significant convergence. I argue, further, that the encyclical breaks new ground with its suggestion that, at the center of our moral thinking in business ethics lies a logic of contribution or gift. I discuss Benedict’s understanding of the crisis, and his exhortation to reach beyond conventional interpretations of corporate responsibility, under the following four headings: Diagnosing a Crisis , Institutionalizing Conscience , A Tripartite View of Corporate Responsibility, and Comprehensive Moral Thinking

This paper explains and defends three basic propositions: (1) that our attitudes (particularly American attitudes) towardorganizational ethics are conflicted at a fairly deep level; (2) that in response to this conflict in our attitudes, we often default to variouscounterfeits of conscience (non-moral systems that serve as surrogates for the role of conscience in organizational settings); and(3) that a better response (than relying on counterfeits) would be for leaders to foster a culture of ethical awareness in their organizations. Some practical suggestions are made about fostering such a culture, and a comparison is made between this late-20th-century response to the problem of counterfeits and the classic “naturalistic fallacy” identified in early-20th-century ethics by G. E. Moore.

This article attempts to answer the question, “What are the most important ideas from serving as Executive Editor of the five‐year history project that culminated in the book, Corporate Responsibility: The American Experience?” The ideas focus on clarifying the phenomenon of tenacity; looking at three foundations of our tenacity; and asking “How fragile is our tenacity?” This article also presents three foundational principles that underlie the American experience of corporate responsibility. First, the Checks & Balances Principle tells us that there are checks and balances in democratic capitalism which give us confidence that the pursuit of economic goals will be moderated for the common good. Second, the Moral Projection Principle shows that there is good reason to consider the corporation not only as a legal person under corporate law but also as a moral person. And, last, the Moral Common Ground Principle reflects that there are shared moral values ascertainable by well‐developed consciences in individuals and in corporations. The article concludes with this argument: The tenacity regarding corporate responsibility that has been so characteristic of American capitalism is fragile—calling for serious vigilance if it is to endure

In this article two broad ideals or 'umbrella' concepts in management ethics—one Eastern and one Western—are examined, with an eye toward explaining their fundamental similarities. Beyond ques tions of meaning and conceptual analysis, however, are questions of implementation. Institutional izing an ethical orientation—Eastern or Western—is the theme of the last part of the article. Different approaches to institutionalization are discussed and a strategy is suggested for making the 'umbrella' concepts part of the operating systems of organizations.

Much has been written about stakeholder analysis as a process by which to introduce ethical values into management decision-making. This paper takes a critical look at the assumptions behind this idea, in an effort to understand better the meaning of ethical management decisions.A distinction is made between stakeholder analysis and stakeholder synthesis. The two most natural kinds of stakeholder synthesis are then defined and discussed: strategic and multi-fiduciary. Paradoxically, the former appears to yield business without ethics and the latter appears to yield ethics without business. The paper concludes by suggesting that a third approach to stakeholder thinking needs to be developed, one that avoids the paradox just mentioned and that clarifies for managers (and directors) the legitimate role of ethical considerations in decision-making.