Alex Pepper

Is the job of a company director simply to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible for shareholders? Do businesses have obligations to employees, other stakeholders, and society as a whole? And, most pressingly of all, do they have any responsibility for the environment, for social inequality, and to sustain fair competition in a world dominated by mega-corporations? In this book, Professor Alexander (‘Sandy’) Pepper considers the controversial subject of corporate purpose. Drawing on ideas from philosophy, economics, law, and management studies, he critically examines competing answers to the question ‘What’s a Company For?’. To help answer this, Pepper imagines the conversations that might take place if 20th-century economist Milton Friedman, who famously argued for the primacy of shareholders’ interests, engaged in dialogue with Socrates. The Athenian philosopher proves a playful and provocative interlocutor for questions of how a company operates ethically when faced with 21st-century questions of responsibility towards people, society, and the planet. Ultimately, through academic argument and creative philosophical dialogues, Pepper makes the case for responsible business. Building on Alasdair MacIntyre’s virtue ethics, he argues that a company’s purpose encompasses not just profit, but prosperity for all those who contribute to its work, particularly employees. It also has moral obligations to society in general. This book is a concise, witty, and engaging exploration of these knotty debates, and an essential read for students, researchers and even company directors looking to understand the bigger picture.

While there exist extensive literatures on both distributive justice and senior executive pay, and a number of authors (notably the French economist Thomas Piketty) have addressed the implications of high pay for distributive justice, the existing literature fails to address what senior executives themselves think about distributive justice and whether they consider high income inequalities to be morally acceptable. We address this gap by analysing a unique dataset comprising the views of over 1000 senior executives from across the world, which was constructed using a survey instrument designed by the authors based on a thought experiment resembling John Rawls’s original position. We report four main findings. First, executives conceptualise distributive justice in a pluralistic manner, endorsing different and sometimes apparently conflicting philosophical principles: to explain how this plurality can be accounted for we propose a novel field-theory framework for conceptualising beliefs about distributive justice. Second, executives support similar philosophical approaches at both society and company levels of analysis, thus countering the idea that companies should leave matters of distributive justice exclusively for governments to deal with via the tax system. Third, executives believe that they live in societies and work for companies that fall short of desirable distributive justice outcomes. Fourth, the distributive justice views of the executives in our sample fall into four distinct clusters that are correlated with certain socio-demographic markers. Finally, we note the distinction between distributive justice beliefs and behaviours, from which we derive a number of managerial and public policy implications.