This paper investigates how deans and directors at the top 50 global MBA programs (as rated by the Financial Times in their 2006 Global MBA rankings) respond to questions about the inclusion and coverage of the topics of ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability at their respective institutions. This work purposely investigates each of the three topics separately. Our findings reveal that: (1) a majority of the schools require that one or more of these topics be covered in their MBA curriculum and one-third of the schools require coverage of all three topics as part of the MBA curriculum, (2) there is a trend toward the inclusion of sustainability-related courses, (3) there is a higher percentage of student interest in these topics (as measured by the presence of a Net Impact club) in the top 10 schools, and (4) several schools are teaching these topics using experiential learning and immersion techniques. We note a fivefold increase in the number of stand-alone ethics courses since a 1988 investigation on ethics, and we include other findings about institutional support of centers or special programs; as well as a discussion of integration, teaching techniques, and notable practices in relation to all three topics. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007ethics education, CSR, sustainability,

No abstract

The role of business ethics in developing more sustainable societies is crucial, but we first have to review the concept of sustainability itself and its ethical roots. The objective of this work is to rethink the current concept of sustainability by providing it with a sound universalistic ethical rationale. We propose that ethics is the key by which disputes and conflicts among the economic, social, and environmental domains can and ought to be resolved. This work argues that if we fail to recognize the essential ethical grounding of sustainability, or if we take it for granted, then sustainability can easily lose its way and can end up unjustified.

ethics officers, compliance officers, conflicts of interest, independence,

Milton Friedman famously stated that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, a position now known as the shareholder model of business. Subsequently, the stakeholder model, associated with Edward Freeman, has been widely seen as a heuristically stronger theory of the responsibilities of the firm to the society in which it is situated. Friedman's position, nevertheless, has retained currency among many business thinkers. In this paper we argue that Friedman's economic writings assume an economy in which businesses operate under the protections of limited liability, which allows corporations to privatize their gains while externalizing their losses. By accepting limited liability, Friedman must also accept a view of business as embedded in social interdependency, which serves as the logical and moral foundation for corporate social responsibility (CSR). To restore consistency to his economic principles, Friedman must refuse limited liability or modify his doctrine on CSR and the related stakeholder model of business. Ignacio AbstractMilton Friedman famously stated that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, a position now known as the shareholder model of business. Subsequently, the stakeholder model, associated with Edward Freeman, has been widely seen as a heuristically stronger theory of the responsibilities of the firm to the society in which it is situated. Friedman's position, nevertheless, has retained currency among many business thinkers. In this paper we argue that Friedman's economic writings assume an economy in which businesses operate under the protections of limited liability, which allows corporations to privatize their gains while externalizing their losses. By accepting limited liability, Friedman must also accept a view of business as embedded in social interdependency, which serves as the logical and moral foundation for corporate social responsibility (CSR). To restore consistency to his economic There have been attempts by various scholars to interpret Milton Friedman's shareholder model in a way that brings it closer to the idea of corporate social responsibility and the stakeholder model most widely associated with Edward Freeman. Indeed, in a recent article, Freeman "welcomed Friedman to the big tent of stakeholder theorists" because, as Freeman sees it, creating value for stakeholders is the way to maximize profits (2008, 166). However, as we see it, rather than bringing Friedman into the stakeholder theory tent, Freeman's argument preserves the core of Friedman's shareholder model by putting emphasis on profit maximization for shareholders, while allowing for concern for other stakeholders' interests only insofar as they serve the instrumental purpose of supporting shareholder interests. This view falls far afield of stakeholder theory. However, we think there is another way to move Friedman's shareholder model to Freeman's stakeholder model, and that is to recognize in Friedman's position an internal contradiction, ...