The Contained-Rivalry Requirement and a ‘Triple Feature’ Program for Business Ethics

Martin, Dominic

doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1369-4

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the growing consensus is that business ethics should not be understood in monistic terms. Rather, it must be marked by a plurality of ethical standards to fit the plurality of institutional forms and roles found therein (Martin, ). One needs an “adversarial ethic” (Applebaum, ) that explains and delimits the competitive interactions between market actors, informed by the ends that adversarialism is meant to achieve.…”

Section: Ethical Standards and Transactional Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond market, firm, and state: Mapping the ethics of global value chains

Singer

Ven

2019

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of global value chains (GVCs) and the emergence of novel forms of value chain governance pose two questions for normative business ethics. First, how should we conceptualize the relationships between members of a GVC? Second, what ethical implications follow from these relationships, both with respect to interactions between GVC members and with respect to achieving broader transnational governance goals? We address these questions by examining the emergence of transnational eco-labeling as an increasingly prominent form of GVC governance that is redefining the relationship between nominally independent firms. On the first question, we argue that GVCs occupy a middle ground between intrafirm and interfirm transactions, thereby posing a challenge to theoretical frameworks that attempt to apply ethical standards based on transaction types. On the second question, we argue that this unique institutional status leads to a range of novel ethical considerations and dilemmas for GVC members. Lead firms, their suppliers, and third-party standard-setters all confront new ethical quandaries when third-party eco-labeling is introduced to a GVC. The nature of these quandaries means that, while GVCs may be well-positioned to serve as instruments of transnational governance, they are frequently not well-oriented to do so. Our analysis marks an initial attempt to map the ethical considerations that apply to members of

show abstract

Section: Ethical Standards and Transactional Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond market, firm, and state: Mapping the ethics of global value chains

Singer

Ven

2019

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It should be stressed that high transaction costs between actors in a market are also a reason why markets fail; it is therefore important, for Heath, to recognize the role of social authority and trust within firms as a mechanism that lowers costs, thereby rectifying the inefficiencies that would otherwise result from the high transaction costs that would naturally arise if commerce occurred only through markets (Baumol, ; Buchanan, ; Heath, ; Martin, ). Intra‐firm responsibilities between managers and employees, or managers and investors, are therefore yet another social mechanism that can steer activity in the broader marketplace toward more efficient outcomes.…”

Section: Corporate Responsibility and Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This language suggests a kind of pragmatically tinged, transcendental argument. Corporate managers have ethical responsibilities in their conduct because the institution that houses their activity presupposes that certain types of conduct are inimical to the institution's “constitutive” aim (Martin, ). The values that markets express are values that should also be expressed in the conduct of individuals acting within markets.…”

Section: Corporate Responsibility and Efficiencymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is an attractive elegance in grounding corporate responsibility in an understanding of the overarching purpose of the market. An important body of work drawn from the fields of economics, law, and political theory has contributed to the development of this line of thought, which broadly maintains that standards of corporate conduct should be built upon the normative presuppositions of markets (Arrow, ; Heath, , , , ; Martin, ; McMahon, ; Norman, ; Sen, ; Singer, , ; cf. Schultz, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Corporate responsibility and the plurality of market aims

Smith

2019

Business and Society Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is an attractive elegance in grounding corporate responsibility in an understanding of the overarching purpose of the market. An important body of work drawn from the fields of economics, law, and political theory has contributed to the development of this line of thought, which broadly maintains that standards of corporate conduct should be built upon the normative presuppositions of Abstract A number of recent authors, most notably Joseph Heath, have persausively defended a market-centered account of corporate responsibility that grounds standards of business conduct upon the normative presuppositions of the market. They have us focus on two important items: first, | 199 SMITH Stringham, E. P. (2015). Private governance: Creating order in economic and social life.

show abstract

“…In other words, like sports, democratic politics, and the adversarial legal system, markets are deliberately adversarial (Norman 2011). Unlike street fights or competitive races for coolness among teens, markets are an organized and contained rivalry (Martin 2013). As Heath (2007) puts it, markets represent a complex social and political attempt to institutionalize collective action problems in which participants fail to cooperate.…”

Section: Can Bankrupting Your Competitors Be “Just Business”?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the Very Idea of Egalitarian Markets and Corporations: Why Relationships Might Matter More than Distribution

Néron

2015

Bus. Ethics Q.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT:What kinds of markets, market regulations, and business organizations are compatible with contemporary egalitarian theories of justice? This article argues that any thoughtful answer to this question will have to draw on recent developments in political philosophy that are concerned not only with the equality of the distribution of core goods (or as John Rawls famously put it, with the “distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation”) but also with the requirements for equality of status, voice, and so on, in the relations between individuals and within organizations. The dominance of theories of distributive justice in egalitarian political philosophy since Rawls may have contributed, on the one hand, to the oft-recognized gulf between these theories and their theorists and, on the other, to discussions of corporate governance and business ethics. The main purpose of this article is to introduce business ethicists to some of the less-familiar features of recent relational theories of justice and equality, and to suggest that some of these notions may help bridge the gap between business ethics and political philosophy more generally.

show abstract

The Contained-Rivalry Requirement and a ‘Triple Feature’ Program for Business Ethics

Cited by 20 publications

References 31 publications

Beyond market, firm, and state: Mapping the ethics of global value chains

Beyond market, firm, and state: Mapping the ethics of global value chains

Corporate responsibility and the plurality of market aims

Rethinking the Very Idea of Egalitarian Markets and Corporations: Why Relationships Might Matter More than Distribution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About