Laurence Cranmer

Notes on Business Ethics

This paper formed the basis for five seminars taught as part of the International Business Ethics module, MSc Programme, Birkbeck, University of London, in 2010 and 2011.The overall aim of the seminars was to develop a series of arguments that can provide a route into an ethical analysis of the activities of business. Each of the arguments continues to be under development, and these notes can be read and critiqued in this light. There are of course other ways to address business ethics. The seminars considered how an ethical analysis of business activity might work. The paper has five parts: • Part 1: Responsibilities of firms• Part 2: Global responsibilities of firms• Part 3: Employment and authority• Part 4: Business disciplines and rationality• Part 5: Firms and the environment

Firms, Citizens, and Claims about the Responsibilities of Firms

This paper aims to make a contribution to understanding the public debate among citizens, firms and governments about the responsibilities of firms. We can describe this public debate as an exercise in public reasoning. This type of reasoning may make a contribution to the operations and strategy of firms, to legislation, and to global public policy (among other domains) through all parties thinking carefully about how to collaborate to arrive at constructive solutions. We can start with a broad observation: there is a public debate about the activities of firms. This debate takes a variety of forms. For example, firms provide public justifications for their actions and for the outcomes of these actions. Citizens and other parties will publicly scrutinise firms about these justifications, and in some cases will direct criticism at the justifications, and at the firm’s activities. This public debate reveals differences between the parties that extends beyond the substantive issues involved. These differences include questions about the nature of the activities of firms as a whole and about the boundary of the firm’s responsibilities. The public debate suggests that the actions and outcomes of firms matter to people, and that these actions and outcomes have an ethical significance. It also suggests that firms have some responsibility for these actions and outcomes. This paper will use the example of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change to illustrate how the analysis can be applied to practical issues. This paper develops an approach to the public debate about the responsibilities of firms that analyses the various types of claim made by firms and citizens. Once identified these claims are analysed to work out the implications for the parties, and in particular for citizens and firms. As the analysis develops suggestions are made about public reasoning on these issues. The idea of a claim is used to describe an argument presented in the public debate, and is not intended to capture the range of specific meanings of a claim (for example, a legal claim). Two central types of claim in particular are proposed and considered: direct responsibility claims and marketing claims.The approach aims for clarity. However, this has significant limitations, some of which are a direct consequence of the attempt at clarity. It is hoped that the paper suggests areas for further discussion and analysis.

Corporate Responsibility: Reasons, Principles and Rationality

This paper sets out a series of arguments about the responsibilities of firms. Each of the arguments is currently under development. The paper suggests how an analysis of these issues might work. I begin with the claim that firms, and the individuals within them, have reasons for acting. I discuss the idea that these reasons appeal to principles, and discuss what these principles might involve. I suggest that these principles set a boundary of the firm as a social activity. I consider the ways in which this boundary may be affected by the global context of firms and by appeals to corporate responsibilities in addition to operating legally and making a financial return. I suggest that an idea of public reasoning may be useful for this analysis. I also discuss the idea that reasons for acting may involve both rationality and an appeal to views about ethical significance.