The purpose of this article is to explain the differences between neo‐Aristotelian virtue and positive organizational virtuousness from the virtue ethics perspective. Most studies use virtues and virtuousness interchangeably. A few others try to explain their differences from the positive organizational science perspective. Although closely related, we believe that these two notions are not identical. If we understand neo‐Aristotelian virtue correctly, then it cannot be judged exclusively on what is externally verifiable, as is the case with virtuousness. For these reasons, we attempt our own differentiation, highlighting the gains and losses realized in the migration from neo‐Aristotelian virtue to positive organizational virtuousness, and establishing guideposts to meaningfully combine the strengths of both concepts.

This article proposes a theory of the firm based on the common good. It clarifies the meaning of the term "common good" tracing its historical development. Next, an analogous sense applicable to the firm is derived from its original context in political theory. Put simply, the common good of the firm is the production of goods and services needed for flourishing, in which different members participate through work. This is linked to the political common good through subsidiarity. Lastly, implications and challenges arising from the positing of work as the common good of the firm are explored.

Virtue ethics is generally recognized as one of the three major schools of ethics, but is often waylaid by utilitarianism and deontology in business and management literature. EBSCO and ABI databases were used to look for articles in the Journal of Citation Reports publications between 1980 and 2011 containing the keywords 'virtue ethics ', 'virtue theory', or 'virtuousness' in the abstract and 'business' or 'management' in the text. The search was refined to draw lists of the most prolific authors, the most cited authors, the most cited articles, and the journals with the most virtue ethics publications. This information allows one to chart how virtue ethics articles have evolved through the decades and to establish 'schools' or clusters of authors as well as clusters of themes. The results of this quantitative analysis of authors, 'schools', themes, and publications provide a foundation for the future study of virtue ethics in business and management, identifying its achievements and potentials.bs_bs_banner

No abstract

Previously we have defined the common good of the firm as work-in-common, insofar as it provides, above all, an opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, virtues and meaning (work as praxis), and secondly, inasmuch as it produces goods and services to satisfy society's needs and wants (work as poiesis). We would now like to focus on the participatory aspect of this common good. To do so, we will have to identify the different members of the firm as a community, as citizens of the corporate polity. Afterwards, we will explore how these different members can and should participate in the firm's common good. I. The Common Good of the FirmThe generic common good of the firm is the production of goods and services in which human beings participate through work. From an Aristotelian viewpoint, this is the good of the firm as an intermediate association and of each of its constituents.Insofar as the firm achieves this, it fulfils its purpose: it becomes a "good firm", one that is well-governed and that makes its members good. In the same way that citizens participate in the common good of the polis by exercising citizenship, the members of the firm participate in its common good through work.