Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Business Ethics
Published in: Journal of Business Ethics 2/2016

26-11-2014

Applying Metaethical and Normative Claims of Moral Relativism to (Shareholder and Stakeholder) Models of Corporate Governance

Author: Andrew West

Published in: Journal of Business Ethics | Issue 2/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

There has, in recent decades, been considerable scholarship regarding the moral aspects of corporate governance, and differences in corporate governance practices around the world have been widely documented and investigated. In such a context, the claims associated with moral relativism are relevant. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed consideration of how the metaethical and normative claims of moral relativism in particular can be applied to corporate governance. This objective is achieved, firstly, by reviewing what is meant by metaethical moral relativism and identifying two ways in which the metaethical claim can be assessed. The possibility of a single, morally superior model of corporate governance is subsequently considered through an analysis of prominent works justifying the shareholder and stakeholder approaches, together with a consideration of academic agreement in this area. The paper then draws on the work of Wong (Moral relativity, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1984, A companion to ethics, Blackwell, Malden, 1993, Natural moralities: A defense of pluralistic relativism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006), firstly in providing an argument supporting metaethical moral relativism and secondly regarding values of tolerance and/or accommodation that can contribute to the normative claim. The paper concludes by proposing an argument that it is morally wrong to impose a model of corporate governance where there are differences in moral judgements relevant to corporate governance, or to interfere with a model in similar circumstances, and closes with consideration of the argument’s implications.
next article The Drivers of Climate Change Innovations: Evidence from the Australian Wine Industry

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
Donaldson and Dunfee (1999b, p. 46) describe ‘hypernorms’ as “principles so fundamental that, by definition, they serve to evaluate lower-order norms, reaching to the root of what is ethical for humanity. They represent norms by which all others are to be judged” and can thus be considered to reflect a ‘universal’, non-relative morality. In contrast, ‘moral free space’ refers to the “moral differences that mark a culture’s distinctiveness” (1999b, p. 50). Although Donaldson and Dunfee do not advocate a general moral relativism (preferring the term ‘pluralism’), their theory does reflect the distinction between universal and relative moral judgements.
 
2
Forsyth et al. describe the relativism dimension in terms of “one’s emphasis on moral principles as guides for determining what is right and wrong” (2008, p. 815) and considers those who are highly relativistic to “base their appraisals on features of the particular situation and action they are evaluating” (2008, p. 815). This corresponds to Tsu’s description of moral particularists as those who “believe that the moral status of an action is not determined by moral principles; instead it always relies on the particular configuration of its contextual features” (2011, p. 388). See also Dancy (2009).
 
3
See Clarke (2007), Rossouw and Sison (2006) and Solomon and Solomon (2004) for detailed descriptions of how these models of corporate governance differ, as well as various national and regional perspectives on these models. Consistent with the approach of these authors, this paper focuses on the corporate governance of public companies.
 
4
This paper follows Brandt (1967), Gowans (2012), Moser and Carson (2001) and Wong (1993) in distinguishing between different claims that are associated with moral relativism or aspects thereof, specifically the ‘descriptive’, ‘metaethical’ and ‘normative’ claims/aspects, as making such distinctions allows for greater conceptual clarity. Throughout this paper, these are referred to as the descriptive/metaethical/normative claims of moral relativism, or simply as descriptive/metaethical/normative moral relativism.
 
5
See MacIntyre (1985) for a more detailed discussion of the context of emotivism’s development and additional objections to emotivism as an adequate moral theory.
 
6
Dewey’s pragmatism sought to apply the methods of inquiry that are prevalent in science to questions of morality, aesthetics, metaphysics and politics. Harrison describes Dewey’s position as requiring “the application of intelligent inquiry, the self-correcting method of experimentally testing hypotheses created and refined from our previous experience” (Harrison 1995a, p. 197).
 
7
Falk (1953) analysed moral prescriptions and identified the reasoning implicit in moral imperatives such as those presented by emotivist accounts of morality. He concluded that these moral prescriptions are attempts “to teach someone to appreciate something” (1953, p. 171), and that, as such, they are both attempts at practical conversion and objective claims.
 
8
This distinction remains where the shareholder model corresponds to an “Enlightened shareholder theory” (Tricker 2012, p. 74), in which stakeholder interests are considered insofar as they contribute to the ultimate goal of enhancing shareholder wealth, as the ultimate goal is itself a point of contention. (See also the distinction between ‘instrumental’ and ‘normative’ stakeholder theory identified by Donaldson and Preston 1995).
 
9
A crude indication of the impact of these articles can also be obtained from the number of citations thereof (all figures obtained using Google Scholar, as at 23 September 2013): Evan and Freeman (1988): 942 citations (excluding reprints in later editions of Beauchamp and Bowie 1988) Freeman (1994): 1056 citations Friedman (1970): 6844 citations. Hansmann and Kraakman (2001): 1364 citations.
 
10
Gowans (2012) defines descriptive moral relativism as the claim that “as a matter of empirical fact, there are deep and widespread moral disagreements across different societies, and these disagreements are much more significant than whatever agreements there may be”.
 
11
Note that although this argument refers to claims associated with moral relativism and their application to corporate governance, it is not an argument for moral relativism, but an argument that tolerance and/or accommodation is applicable to this issue and, in this context, can be justified.
 
Literature
Baker, C. R. (2006). Accounting ethics: The search for truth in an age of moral relativism. In J. E. Ketz (Ed.), Accounting ethics: Critical perspectives on business and management (Vol. 2, pp. 168–178). Abingdon: Routledge.
Beauchamp, T., & Bowie, N. (Eds.). (1988). Ethical theory and business (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Benedict, R. (1934). Anthropology and the abnormal. Journal of General Psychology, 10(1), 59–82.CrossRef
Berle, A. A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.CrossRef
Berle, A. A., & Means, G. C. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. London: Macmillan.
Boatright, J. R. (1994). Fiduciary duties and the shareholder-management relation: Or, what’s so special about shareholders? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 393–407.CrossRef
Brandt, R. (1967). Ethical relativism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), The encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Clarke, T. (Ed.). (2004). Theories of corporate governance. Abingdon: Routledge.
Clarke, T. (2007). International corporate governance: A comparative approach. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRef
Coelho, P. R. P., McClure, J. E., & Spry, J. A. (2003a). The social responsibility of corporate management: A classical critique. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(1), 15–24.CrossRef
Coelho, P. R. P., McClure, J. E., & Spry, J. A. (2003b). The social responsibility of management: A reprise. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(2), 51–55.CrossRef
Collier, J., & Roberts, J. (2001). Introduction: An ethic for corporate governance? Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(1), 67–71.CrossRef
Collins, J. C., & Porras, J. I. (1994). Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies. New York: Harper Collins.
Cosans, C. (2009). Does Milton Friedman support a vigorous business ethics? Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 391–399.CrossRef
Dancy, J. (2009). Moral particularism. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2009 edition).
Dierksmeier, C., & Celano, A. (2012). Thomas Aquinas on justice as a global virtue in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(2), 247–272.CrossRef
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999a). Ties that bind: A social contracts approach to business ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Donaldson, T., & Dunfee, T. W. (1999b). When ethics travel: The promise and peril of global business ethics. California Management Review, 41(4), 45–63.CrossRef
Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.
Evan, W. M., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A stakeholder theory of the modern corporation: Kantian capitalism. In T. Beauchamp & N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (3rd ed., pp. 97–106). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Falk, W. D. F. (1953). Goading and guiding. Mind: A Quaterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 62(246), 145–171.CrossRef
Fama, E. F. (1980). Agency problems and the theory of the firm. Journal of Political Economy, 88(2), 288–307.CrossRef
Forsyth, D. R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(1), 175–184.CrossRef
Forsyth, D. R., O’Boyle, E. H, Jr, & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). East meets West: A meta-analytic investigation of cultural variations in idealism and relativism. Journal of Business Ethics, 83, 813–833.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 409–421.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E., & Evan, W. M. (1990). Corporate governance: A stakeholder interpretation. The Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19(4), 337–359.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and ‘The corporate objective revisited’. Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.CrossRef
Friedman, M. (1970, 13 September). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York: Times Magazine, p. 33.
Gibson, K. (2000). The moral basis of stakeholder theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3), 245–257.CrossRef
Hansmann, H., & Kraakman, R. (2001). The end of history for corporate law. Georgetown Law Journal, 89(2), 439–468.
Harman, G. (2001, orig. 1984). Is there a single true morality? In P. K. Moser & T. L. Carson (Eds.), Moral Relativism: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. (1995a). Dewey, John. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, R. (1995b). Non-cognitivism. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 97–124.CrossRef
Hastings, S. E., & Finegan, J. E. (2011). The role of ethical ideology in reactions to injustice. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 689–703.CrossRef
Hepburn, R. W. (1995a). Emotive theory of ethics. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hepburn, R. W. (1995b). Moral realism. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hepburn, R. W. (1995c). Objectivism and subjectivism, ethical. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures in four dimensions: A research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 13(1–2), 46–74.CrossRef
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Holmes, R. L. (2007). Basic moral philosophy (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.CrossRef
Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2013). Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(2), 207–238.CrossRef
Kant, I. (1947, orig. 1785). Fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals (A. K. Thomas, Ed., Trans.). New York: Liberal Arts Press.
Koehn, D. (2013). East meets West: Towards a universal ethic of virtue for global business. Journal of Business Ethics, 116, 703–715.CrossRef
Kopelman, L. M. (1994). Female circumcision/genital mutilation and ethical relativism. Second Opinion, 20(2), 55–71.
Lewis, L., & Unerman, J. (1999). Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 10(4), 521–547.CrossRef
Lu, L.-C., & Lu, C.-J. (2010). Moral philosophy, materialism and consumer ethics: An exploratory study in Indonesia. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 193–210.CrossRef
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed.). London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Maitland, I. (1989). Rights in the workplace: a Nozickian argument. Journal of Business Ethics, 8(12), 951–954.CrossRef
Maitland, I. (1994). The morality of the corporation: an empirical or normative disagreement? Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(4), 445–458.CrossRef
Marta, J., Singhapakdi, A., Lee, D.-J., Burnaz, S., Topcu, Y. I., Atakan, M. G. S., & Ozkaracalar, T. (2012). The effects of corporate ethical values and personal moral philosophies on ethical intentions in selling situations: Evidence from Turkish, Thai and American businesspeople. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 229–241.CrossRef
McDonnell, B. H. (2002). Convergence in corporate governance: Possible, but not desirable. Villanova Law Review, 47(2), 341–386.
Moody-Adams, M. (1997). Fieldwork in familiar places. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Moser, P. K., & Carson, T. L. (2001). Introduction. In P. K. Moser & T. L. Carson (Eds.), Moral relativism: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nayir, D. Z., & Herzig, C. (2012). Value orientations as determinants of preference for external and anonymous whistleblowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 197–213.CrossRef
Ndiweni, E. (2008). Towards a theoretical framework of corporate governance: Perspectives from Southern Africa. In M. Tsamenyi & S. Uddin (Eds.), Corporate governance in less developed and emerging economies (pp. 335–357). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.CrossRef
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 479–502.CrossRef
Post, F. R. (2003a). A response to ‘The social responsibility of corporate management: A classical critique’. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(1), 25–35.CrossRef
Post, F. R. (2003b). The social responsibility of management: A critique of the shareholder paradigm and defense of stakeholder primacy. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18(2), 57–61.CrossRef
Potts, S. D., & Matuszewski, I. L. (2004). Ethics and corporate governance. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 12(4), 177–179.CrossRef
Rachels, J. (1993). Subjectivism. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Maldon: Blackwell.
Rachels, J. (1999). The elements of moral philosophy (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rossouw, G. J., & Sison, A. J. G. (Eds.). (2006). Global perspectives on ethics of corporate governance. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Ryan, L. V., Buchholtz, A. K., & Kolb, R. W. (2010). New directions in corporate governance and finance: Implications for business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(4), 673–694.CrossRef
Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23–47.CrossRef
Schwartz, M. S., & Saiia, D. (2012). Should firms go “beyond profits”? Milton Friedman versus Broad CSR. Business and Society Review, 117(1), 1–31.CrossRef
Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: W. Strahan & T. Cadell.CrossRef
Smith, M. (1993). Realism. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Malden: Blackwell.
Solomon, J., & Solomon, A. (2004). Corporate governance and accountability. Chichester: Wiley.
Stevenson, C. L. (1944). Ethics and language. London: Yale University Press.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn and Company.
Sundarum, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004a). The corporate objective revisited. Organization Science, 15(3), 350–363.CrossRef
Sundarum, A. K., & Inkpen, A. C. (2004b). Stakeholder theory and ‘The corporate objective revisited’: A reply. Organization Science, 15(3), 370–371.CrossRef
Tricker, B. (2012). Corporate governance: Principles, policies and practices (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tsu, P. S.-H. (2011). Defending particularism from supervenience/resultance attack. Acta Analytica, 26, 387–402.CrossRef
West, A. G. (2009). Corporate governance convergence and moral relativism. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(1), 107–119.CrossRef
Williams, B. (1972). Morality: An introduction to ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wong, D. B. (1984). Moral relativity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wong, D. B. (1993). Relativism. In P. Singer (Ed.), A companion to ethics. Malden: Blackwell.
Wong, D. B. (2006). Natural moralities: A defense of pluralistic relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Applying Metaethical and Normative Claims of Moral Relativism to (Shareholder and Stakeholder) Models of Corporate Governance
Author
Andrew West
Publication date
26-11-2014
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0167-4544
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0697
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2453-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Journal of Business Ethics 2/2016 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Export Intensity and MNE Customers’ Environmental Requirements: Effects on Local Chinese Suppliers’ Environment Strategies

OriginalPaper

The Influence of Environmental Management Systems on Financial Performance: A Moderated-Mediation Analysis

Report

Individual Competencies for Corporate Social Responsibility: A Literature and Practice Perspective

Erratum

Erratum to: Governance of Eco-Labels: Expert Opinion and Media Coverage

OriginalPaper

Environmental Protection in Environmentally Reactive Firms: Lessons from Corporate Argentina

OriginalPaper

The Drivers of Climate Change Innovations: Evidence from the Australian Wine Industry