Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-747cfc64b6-5dv6l Total loading time: 0.176 Render date: 2021-06-13T18:54:03.353Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Integrative Social Contracts Theory

A Communitarian Conception of Economic Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Thomas Donaldson
Affiliation:
Georgetown University
Thomas W. Dunfee
Affiliation:
The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Extract

Difficult moral issues in economic life, such as evaluating the impact of hostile takeovers and plant relocations or determining the obligations of business to the environment, constitute the raison d'etre of business ethics. Yet, while the ultimate resolution of such issues clearly requires detailed, normative analysis, a shortcoming of business ethics is that to date it has failed to develop an adequate normative theory.1 The failing is especially acute when it results in an inability to provide a basis for fine-grained analyses of issues. Both general moral theories and stakeholder theory seem incapable of expressing the moral complexity necessary to provide practical normative guidance for many business ethics contexts.

Type
Essays
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Axelrod, Robert. 1986. ‘An evolutionary approach to norms’. American Political Science Review, 80(4):1095–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Michael. 1992. ‘The moral legislature: contracrualism without an Archimedean point’. Ethics, 102(2):303–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas and Preston., Lee E. 1995. ‘The stakeholder conception of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications’. Academy of Management Review, 20:127Google Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. 1991. ‘Kant's global rationalism’. In Traditions of Ethics in International Affairs, Chapter 7. Terence, Nardin (ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. 1989. The Ethics of International Business. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, Thomas. 1982. Corporations and Morality. Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Drucker, Peter. 1981. ‘Ethical chic’. Forbes, 128:160–2Google Scholar
Dunfee, Thomas W. 1991. ‘Business ethics and extant social contracts’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1(1):2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunfee, Thomas W. and Maurer, Virginia C.. 1992. ‘Corporate attorney whistle blowing: devising a proper standard’. Business & Professional Ethics journal, 11(3 and 4): 339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Anthony. 1991. ‘The idea of utilitarianism’. In Traditions of Ethics in International Affairs, Chapter 8. Terence, Nardin(ed.). Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Freeman, R. Edward. 1984. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Pitman PressGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. 1990. ‘Reason and agreement in social contract views’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(2):122–57Google Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1986. Morals by Agreement. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, David. 1985. ‘The unity of reason: a subversive reinterpretation of Kant’. Ethics, 96:7488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gert, Bernard. 1988. Morality, Oxford University PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. 1991. ‘Business ethics and stakeholder analysis’. Business Ethics Quarterly, 1:5373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1989. Conflicts of Law and Morality. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hardin, Russell. 1988. Morality Within the Limits of Reason. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Hume, David. 1953. ‘Of the original contract’. In David Hume's Political Essays, pp. 4363. Charles, W. Hendel (ed.). Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1964. The Metaphysical Principles of Virtue. Trans. James Ellington. Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention. Harvard University PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maclntyre, Alisdair C. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. University of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
Moralogy, Institute of. 1987. An Outline of Moralogy. English Edition. Institute of Moralogy, Kashiwa-Shi, JapanGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek. 1984. Reasons and Persons. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Pettit, Phillip. 1990. ‘Virtus normativa: rational choice perspectives’. Ethics, 100:725–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Lee E. and Sapienza, Harry J.. 1990. ‘Stakeholder management and corporate performance’. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19:361–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1975. ‘Fairness to goodness’. Philosophical Review, 84:536e-54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 1990. ‘Specifying norms as a way to resolve concrete ethical problems’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(4):279310Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael. 1982. Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Shaffer, Leigh S. 1983. ‘Toward Pepitone's vision of a normative social psychology: what is a social norm?The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 4(2):275–94Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1980. Basic Rights: Subsistence, Affluence, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charles. 1989. Sources of the Self. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
United Nations. 1990. Letter dated 31 May 1990 from Chairman of Commission on Transnational Corporations to the President of the Economic and Social CouncilGoogle Scholar
United Nations. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 1992. ‘Moral minimalism’. In From the Twilight of Probability: Ethics and Politics, pp. 114. William, R. Shea and Antonio, Spadafora (eds.). Science History PublicationsGoogle Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Macmillan CompanyGoogle Scholar
112
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Integrative Social Contracts Theory
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Integrative Social Contracts Theory
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Integrative Social Contracts Theory
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *