Geert Demuijnck

Academically, the content of business ethics classes is rather mainstream, with a few exceptions where teachers focus more on continental philosophy and postmodernism. This is related to the fact that business ethics is mainly taught in business schools, rather than in universities, and French business schools have developed internationally, with classes in English. In terms of research, there are not so many publications in French, but the French research are quite present in the international journals. On the corporate level, the major French multinational corporation have quite well-developed policies in business ethics. This has been triggered by different elements, among which a critical public opinion and the development of increasingly stringent legislation.

Key whistleblowing legislation in the US and EU remains ambiguous about protection for a specific (but important) group of employees, namely Role-Prescribed Reporters (RPR). An RPR is any worker who reports wrongdoing as part of their normal job duties, also known as duty speech. These workers are not whistleblowers when they report wrongdoing as part of their normal job. When they are neglected or experience retaliation they may report the same wrongdoing through a formally designated whistleblowing channel. We demonstrate how such situations amount to loopholes in whistleblower protection legislation. We discuss loopholes in the US (Whistleblower Protection Act, False Claims Act, Dodd-Frank Act) and the EU (Ireland, France, the Netherlands), in which an RPR does not enjoy whistleblower protection for any retaliation that occurred prior to using a formal channel. We argue the RPR exerts their function in a setting of uncertainty that, if they are unlucky, can lead to unfairness and situations of painful ‘agent-regret’ (which is an essential aspect of ‘moral luck’). Insofar as this uncertainty is perfectly avoidable, it is ethically unacceptable. We evaluate possible solutions and argue that reducing the scope of moral luck for RPRs (duty speech professionals) by retroactively attributing them a whistleblower status in the case of retaliation would close the currently prevailing legal loophole.

Key whistleblowing legislation in the US and EU remains ambiguous about protection for a specific (but important) group of employees, namely Role-Prescribed Reporters (RPR). An RPR is any worker who reports wrongdoing as part of their normal job duties, also known as duty speech. These workers are not whistleblowers when they report wrongdoing as part of their normal job. When they are neglected or experience retaliation they may report the same wrongdoing through a formally designated whistleblowing channel. We demonstrate how such situations amount to loopholes in whistleblower protection legislation. We discuss loopholes in the US (Whistleblower Protection Act, False Claims Act, Dodd-Frank Act) and the EU (Ireland, France, the Netherlands), in which an RPR does not enjoy whistleblower protection for any retaliation that occurred prior to using a formal channel. We argue the RPR exerts their function in a setting of uncertainty that, if they are unlucky, can lead to unfairness and situations of painful ‘agent-regret’ (which is an essential aspect of ‘moral luck’). Insofar as this uncertainty is perfectly avoidable, it is ethically unacceptable. We evaluate possible solutions and argue that reducing the scope of moral luck for RPRs (duty speech professionals) by retroactively attributing them a whistleblower status in the case of retaliation would close the currently prevailing legal loophole.

The paper analyzes managers’ stance toward the ethical responsibility of those who work for multinational garment retailers. Most are charged with the social compliance policies affecting relationships with subcontractors. This study is based on interviews conducted with major European and American retailers. Our research question is: what is the normative stance of our respondents? We find that they reject the ideological way in which the normative debate on sweatshops has been conducted by business ethicists during the last decades. These executives’ implicit conception and scope of their moral responsibility is much more in line with Iris Young’s (2006) conception of ‘political responsibility’. This managerial ethical position has not been adequately captured by earlier writings on this topic. In general, the managerial ethical framing of issues like child labor, minimally decent labor conditions, a living wage, etc. is at odds with how these issues are usually treated in the philosophical debates around sweatshops. Examining both visions allows us to better grasp the pragmatic normative stance of business practitioners as well as the dynamics of social compliance policies. In the conclusion, we draw both management lessons and research implications for more ethical interactions with suppliers.

This paper aims at gaining a better understanding of the inherent paradoxes within sustainability discourses by investigating its basic assumptions. Drawing on a study of the metaphoric references operative in moral language, we reveal the predominance of the ‘well-being = wealth’ construct, which may explain the dominance of the ‘business case’ cognitive frame in sustainability discourses. We incorporate economic well-being variables within a philosophical model of becoming well :221–231, 2005), highlighting the way in which these variables consistently articulate a combination of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ concerns. We then compare this broad understanding of well-being with the metaphors operative in the sustainable development discourse and argue that the sustainability discourse has fallen prey to an overemphasis on the ‘business case’. We proceed to draw on Georges Bataille to challenge the predominance of these value priorities and to explore which mindshifts are required to develop a more comprehensive understanding of what is needed to enable ‘sustainable development’.

The ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (Principles) that provide guidance for the implementation of the United Nations’ ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework (Framework) will probably succeed in making human rights matters more customary in corporate management procedures. They are likely to contribute to higher levels of accountability and awareness within corporations in respect of the negative impact of business activities on human rights. However, we identify tensions between the idea that the respect of human rights is a perfect moral duty for corporations and the Principle’s ‘human rights due diligence’ requirement. We argue that the effectiveness of the ‘human rights due diligence’ is in many respects dependent upon the moral commitment of corporations. The Principles leave room for an instrumental or strategic implementation of due diligence, which in some cases could result in a depreciation of the fundamental norms they seek to promote. We reveal some limits of pragmatic approaches to coping with business-related human rights abuses. As these limits become more apparent, not only does the case for further progress in international and extraterritorial human rights law become more compelling, but so too does the argument for a more forceful discussion on the moral foundations of human rights duties for corporations

This article proposes a way to zoom in on the concept of the social license to operate from the broader normative perspective of contractarianism. An SLO can be defined as a contractarian basis for the legitimacy of a company’s specific activity or project. “SLO”, as a fashionable expression, has its origins in business practice. From a normative viewpoint, the concept is closely related to social contract theory, and, as such, it has a political dimension. After outlining the contractarian normative background to the SLO, we will show how academic concepts such as legitimacy and stakeholder management have a tendency to provide the intellectual underpinning for the business case for securing an SLO. While business case perspectives on the SLO may well be in line with the use of the term in business practice, we will highlight certain difficulties and ambiguities related to the instrumental use of the expression. In the final section, we briefly introduce the articles of this Special Issue to the reader and explain how they relate to the topic.

Despite the fact that business people and business students often cast doubt on the relevance of universal moral principles in business, the rejection of relativism is a precondition for business ethics to get off the ground. This paper proposes an educational strategy to overcome the philosophical confusions about relativism in which business people and students are often trapped. First, the paper provides some conceptual distinctions and clarifications related to moral relativism, particularism, and virtue ethics. More particularly, it revisits arguments demonstrating that virtues in business are not in contradiction with the relevance of universal principles, despite the fact that virtue ethics is often identified with particular relationships and contexts. It goes on to show how students and managers, but also researchers, often mix up radically different conceptions of moral relativism. It is also argued that this confusion is in part created by the cross-cultural management literature in which the methodological stance of the value-freedom of the social sciences is, in a perplexingly mistaken way, transformed into a rejection of all normative discussion and a plea for relativism. The remainder of the paper presents some tools that may be helpful in steering people toward less simplistic views about moral relativism and virtue ethics. It further argues that it is equally important to spell out that moral universalism can be understood in a humble way, without implying either arrogant ethnocentrism or omniscience, as part of an ongoing debate that progresses gradually.

In this paper, I will argue that it is a moral obligation for companies, firstly, to accept their moral responsibility with respect to non-discrimination, and secondly, to address the issue with a full-fledged programme, including but not limited to the countering of microsocial discrimination processes through specific policies. On the basis of a broad sketch of how some discrimination mechanisms are actually influencing decisions, that is, causing intended as well as unintended bias in Human Resources Management (HRM), I will argue that the well known tools of legislation and ethical codes are necessary although insufficient to cope with the problem. However, based on empirical evidence, we know which set of measures is likely to diminish discrimination. Taking non-discrimination seriously implies complex and longitudinal policies which include assigning responsibility for a non-discrimination policy within the firm, making managers conscious of implicit stereotypes and helping them to cope with prejudices that no one can totally overcome. Insofar as corporate responsibility with respect to non-discrimination is accepted and strategies that are not prohibitively expensive are known, companies are bound to implement them. Not implementing the best set of measures may be considered at least as a moral shortcoming or, depending on the size of the company, mere lip service to the non-discrimination principle. Although the paper refers to empirical material of diverse backgrounds, its intent is clearly normative. It wishes to spell out what companies ought to do if they are committed to responsible behaviour. The discussion of effective remedies against discrimination is based on a case study of a French company. The retailer Auchan was recently surprised to learn that it was discriminating against ethnic minorities despite strong ethical standards, an ethics committee and ethical leadership. The company dropped its naïve beliefs and set up an ambitious policy cope with the issue. The case illustrates what recent empirical research has revealed about the effectiveness of diversity policies: establishing responsibility for diversity results, firm ethical commitment and support from top management make diversity programs effective.

In this paper we evaluate the ethical aspects of a public-private partnership (PPP) for the production and distribution of electricity in a particular context, i.e.,in a developing country characterized by a high corruption rate. In general, multinational enterprises (MNE) are considered suspect in developing countries by their own populations and by others, especially in those countries perceived as corrupt. A second source of suspicion concerns the privatization of utilities: utilities such as electricity and clean water play an essential role in people’s lives, thus, leaving their production and distribution in the hands of for-profit companies may seem imprudent, particularly with respect to the poorest people. On the basis of a questionnaire submitted to managers of a privatized utility company in Cameroon, this case study suggests that the combination of these two sources of suspicion does not automatically lead to negative outcomes.

In this article, we explore the implicit conceptions of business ethics and social responsibility of owners−managers of small and medium enterprises (SME) in Cameroon. While using a hermeneutical approach, our main objective is to clarify how Sub-Saharan African business people themselves understand and define corporate responsibility in their particular economic and political environment. Our aim is not to deliver an empirical study of business practices and management behavior in SMEs. We wish to discuss which responsibilities they themselves judge to be relevant and which can legitimately be attributed to them by third parties. Secondly, we relate our findings to other empirical work on SMEs, in Africa and elsewhere. It is shown that there are similarities with the way in which SMEs in Europe interpret their responsibility, but also striking differences. Further, we relate our findings to some theoretical controversies around corporate social responsibility (CSR) in SMEs, to questions about evaluation tools for CSR in the SME context, and to the role of CSR with respect to poverty alleviation in developing countries.