Neoclassical economic theory assumes that people pursue utility maximization within an objective framework, evident to all, that serves as the basis for the interaction. Agents are assumed to be detached observers who see the situation as it is in objective reality. It is argued in this article that there is no objective ground for interaction that exists apart from the understanding of economic agents. Agents have orientations that change over time depending on the way that the situation is currently understood. Depth of understanding and the extent of common ground depend on the quality of attention and the will to openness and honesty. Efforts to maintain connections with others make possible mutual understanding and visions of the common good that enable the coordinated pursuit of desired states of the world.

Ethical problems in business include not only genuine moral dilemmas and compliance problems but also problems arising from the distinctive characteristics of imperfect duties. Collective action by business to perfect imperfect duties can yield significant benefits. Such arrrangements can (1) reduce temptations to moral laxity, (2) achieve greater efficiency by eliminating redundancies and gaps that plague uncoordinated individual efforts, (3) reap economies of scale and achieve success where benefits can be provided only if a certain threshold of resources can be brought to bear on a social problem, (4) solve assurance problems where voluntary compliance by some parties depends upon their perception that competitors are doing their fair share, and (5) produce higher levels of contribution than would occur through independent action in response to imperfect duties, stimulated by the perception that there is a fair distribution of burdens of contribution among all parties involved.

Recalling several profound disagreements about business ethics as it is currently discussed in Western societies, I emphasize the need for business ethics as an academic discipline that constitutes the “backbone” for both teaching business ethics and improving business practice (section 1). Then I outline a conceptual framework of business ethics that promotes a “bottom-up” approach (section 2). This “problem-and action-oriented” conception appears to be fruitful in terms of both practical relevance and theoretical understanding. Finally, I argue for (section 3) the relevance of discussing goals at all levels of human action (i.e., individuals, organizations, systems) as well as the indispensability of human rights, and propose Amartya Sen's “goal-rights-system” approach as a normative-ethical framework for business ethics that integrates these two fundamental aspects.

A businessperson acts, qua businessperson, in two institutional contexts which in principle are completely distinct, and normally entail two different ways of relating to other people; on the one hand as an actor in the market, and on the other as the employees’ manager. We shall assume that different sets of norms govern how to relate to trading partners in the market and how to relate to subordinates in the company. The moral problems which arise in the two different institutions for conducting human relations consequently also differ. The main problem relating to market operations originates in the fact that one achieves the most desirable consequences when the objective as such is difficult to justify on moral grounds. Profit is the target, if necessary at the expense of the person one is dealing with. In this context—i.e. in the market—altruistic considerations, or acting out of consideration for the other party, can produce socially undesirable results. The problems confronting the businessperson as manager are of a different nature. We shall not be considering all aspects of management or consultancy ethics, only what we regard as in principle the fundamental problem, one which in fact applies to all management in modern society.

Many areas of business ethics research are “sensitive.” We provide an empirical assessment of the randomized response technique which provides absolute anonymity to subjects and “legal immunity” to the researcher. Beyond that, RRT techniques provide complete disclosure to subjects, unconditional privacy is maintained, and there is no deception.

This response to Dobson and White's call for a feminine firm argues that such a concept is based on a misinterpretation of Gilligan's research. Moreover, virtue ethics and feminine ethics do not share a common approach to nurturing relationships or the moral orientation of care. Acknowledging the worthwhile goals of Dobson and White's endeavor, the feminist firm is presented as offering greater potential to achieve these goals.

“Business Ethics in Developing Countries: A Response to Rossouw” examines Gedeon J. Rossouw's account of business morality and those preconditions that he seeks in order to develop a moral business culture in South Africa, given the historical reality in that country. The paper argues that Rossouw does not take cognisance of history. Particularly of the decade after the election of the Nationalist Party Government in 1948, when that government strove to impose its ideology upon South African Society. If he did take cognisance of that history, then he would not be able to proffer those proposals which he believes would improve business morality there. The paper also extends a caution against the acceptance of economic advancement as a pre-condition for the appearance of moral business practices. Likewise for the contrary view that economic growth is the harbinger of moral decay.