This article argues for the compatibility of casuistry and the business case method. It describes the salient features of casuistry and the case method, shows how the two methods are similar yet different, and suggests how elements of casuistry might benefit the use of the case method in management education. Toward these ends, it shows how casuistry and the case method are both inductive and practical methods of reasoning focussed on single settings and real-life situations and how both methods stress that real-life decision making is not the exclusive domain of experts. It also shows how casuistry and the case method are not identical processes but have different purposes and emphasize order and problem-resolution differently. In the end, Casuistry and the Business Case Method suggests that, despite their differences, casuistry and the case method might be brought together to benefit business management and the field of business ethics.

Communism lost the Cold War, not to pure free market capitalism, but to a range of diverse economic systems based on varying degrees and forms of social regulation of the market. Such social regulation was possible because both polities and economies were primarily national. Since the end of the Cold War, there has been rapid globalization of the economy, but not of effective social regulation. Incipient global political institutions are too weak to regulate global corporate power, while national governments no longer have sufficient reach to regulate large multinationals. Corporate self-regulation has begun, but only haltingly and mostly ineffectively.

While global prosperity has risen dramatically in recent decades, not everyone has progressed since the end of the Cold War. Since 1990 some 55 countries have had declining per capita incomes, while inequality has risen within and between countries. It is too soon to say whether global capitalism will be saved from itself by regulation, just as American national capitalism may have been saved by the New Deal reforms it opposed. As Pope John Paul II has warned, the world must not succumb to a “radical capitalist ideology” which “blindly entrusts” social problems to market forces.

The ethics of sales is an important, but neglected, topic in business ethics. I offer criticisms of what others have said about the moral duties of salespeople and formulate what I take to be a more plausible theory. My theory avoids the objections I raise against others and yields plausible results when applied to cases. I also defend my theory by appeal to the golden rule and offer a justification for the version of the golden rule to which I appeal. I argue that salespeople have prima facie duties to do the following: 1. warn customers of potential hazards, 2. refrain from lying and deception, 3. fully and honestly answer questions about what they are selling, and 4. refrain from steering customers toward purchases they have reason to think will harm the customers. The paper concludes with a brief appendix that discusses the implications of the ethics of sales for the social responsibilities of business.

Traditional approaches to regulating corporate behavior have not, and cannot, produce socially responsible corporations. Although many of the problems with these approaches were identified twenty-five years ago by Christopher Stone, an effective regulatory system still has not been implemented. A model of regulation is needed that is flexible enough to accommodate the variety of contexts in which corporations operate, but also makes corporations responsive to the ever-changing societal expectations of proper corporate behavior. To accomplish these goals, a reflexive law regulatory system is needed. Under this approach, corporations should be encouraged to engage in corporate social accounting, auditing, and reporting (SAAR). The development of SAAR standards informed by reflexive law theory will create a regulatory system that is consistent with the latest thinking in business ethics, including Stakeholder Theory and Integrative Social Contracts Theory.

This paper describes how anticipated age discrimination in the form of disparate treatment induces behavior that in effect constitutes gender discrimination. Potential employers often exhibit a common pattern of behavior that acts to discriminate against older workers entering a specific workplace. Women, at a decision-making point early in their lives, are aware of this pattern of discrimination. They perceive that it is important for them to establish their careers before they have a family because it will be more difficult for them to enter the work force at a later age and excel at their careers. This anticipated age discrimination disparately impacts women, resulting in gender discrimination.

This article draws on ancient and medieval Jewish texts to explore the role of the physical environment in Jewish thought. It situates Jewish teachings in the context of the debate between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism, discusses the Jewish view of nature, and reviews various interpretations of an important Biblical precept of environmental ethics. It argues that while Jewish thought contains many “green” elements, it also contains a number of beliefs that challenge some contemporary environmental values.

The key to the Jewish contribution to environmental ethics lies in the concept of balance—balance between the values and needs of humans and the claims of nature, and between viewing nature as a source of life and moral values and as a threat to human life and social values. The teachings of Judaism challenge both those who would place too low a value on nature as well as those who would place too high a value on it.

This paper is the presidential address to the Society for Business Ethics presented during its annual meeting in Chicago, Illinois, on August 7, 1999. The paper discusses three models of management morality and considers their applicability for thinking about business ethics in the new millennium. The moral management model, in particular, is discussed in contrast to the moral market model, which was presented in the previous year’s presidential address by John Boatright. Immoral Management, Moral Management, and Amoral Management are considered and two hypotheses about the presence of amorality within the management population and individual managers are reflected upon.