v4 n3 von Kriegstein on Jones and Felps

H-von-Kriegstein“Armchair versus Armchair: Let’s Not Try to Guess the Social Value of Corporate Objectives” by Hasko von Kriegstein

A COMMENTARY ON Thomas M. Jones and Will Felps (2013), “Shareholder Wealth Maximization and Social Welfare: A Utilitarian Critique” Bus Ethics Q 23(2): 207–238. http://doi.org/10.5840/beq201323215

Jones and Felps claim that social welfare would be enhanced, if corporate managers adopted the goal of directly improving the happiness of their stakeholders instead of profit maximization. I argue that their argument doesn’t establish this. They show that a utilitarian case for profit orientation cannot be made from the armchair. But neither can the case for Jones and Felps’ preferred alternative. Moreover, their defense of it relies on empirically unsubstantiated assumptions.

To download the full PDF, click here: von Kriegstein on Jones and Felps

v1n3: Néron on Whelan on Political CSR

“Toward a Political Theory of the Business Firm? A Comment on ‘Political CSR'” by Pierre-Yves Néron

A COMMENT ON Glen Whelan (2012), “The Political Perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility: a Critical Agenda,” Bus Ethics Q 22(4): 709–737. DOI: 10.5840/beq201222445

Abstract: Glen Whelan (2012) attempts to advance what he refers to as a “critical research agenda” for the “political perspective on corporate social responsibility (CSR).” Although I think his is a worthy attempt to build a political conception of the business firm and could represent a great intellectual journey, I make some remarks about the meaning and scope of this research agenda. My argument is simple: Rawlsian egalitarianism provides resources for a political theory of the business firm, but one that leads us in different directions than Whelan’s political CSR.

To download the full PDF, click here: Néron on Whelan.