Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 4th Edition, Chapter 3

Suggested answers to the Think Theory exercises

associated with the Ethics in Action boxes

THINK THEORY 1

Think about the concepts of absolutism and relativism in the context of bribery. How would
each theory conceptualize the problem of bribery and what course of action might they
suggest for someone faced with a corrupt official?

Absolutism.
Bribery is always wrong; the person faced with a corrupt official should certainly not
engage in bribery, and depending on the policies in place should also take the matter to
the authorities.

Relativism
Bribery may be wrong; the person faced with a corrupt official should make a judgement
based on the culture in which they are operating and the specific circumstances of the
interaction. If the judgement is that engaging with the corrupt official would be wrong, the
person should act as above; if the judgement is that it is not wrong, no barrier exists to
greasing the wheels.

THINK THEORY 2

Stakeholder theory has also been considered from other theoretical perspectives. How
would you apply utilitarianism for instance to the concept of stakeholder theory? Do you
think that the two different perspectives would suggest different obligations towards
stakeholders?

There is a basic difference in the two approaches, rendering different obligations. The
Kantian ethics of duty is non-consequentialist: stakeholders are ends in themselves, and
firms should treat them all with dignity. Utilitarianism is consequentialist. Here, an action is
morally right (only) if the result is the greatest good for the greatest number. Individual
stakeholders can therefore be treated instrumentally. One example to illustrate how
utilitarianism could be applied: a supermarket chain might be justified in pressurising its
suppliers to deliver goods at disadvantageous conditions (if the utility to customers and
shareholders outweighed the costs to suppliers).

Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten 2016. All rights reserved.

 Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 4th Edition, Chapter 3

THINK THEORY 3

The Ruggie principles assign a central role to business in respecting human rights. Which
of the rights set out in the chapter would companies be most likely to have to respect in
their business operations?

The Ruggie principles hold companies responsible for respecting all human rights. These
are the unalienable rights that we enjoy by virtue of being persons. In theory the Ruggie
Principles apply to all human rights, including the right to free movement, the right to vote,
the right to free speech, etc. These rights cannot be infringed upon by companies without
violating the Ruggie Principles. However, most companies do not have to worry about
those political human rights (although some definitely do). Most companies have to pay
attention to social and economic human rights, such as the right to safe working
conditions. These are the rights that most companies might violate especially in their
value chains.

Another common concern has to do with fair conduct and fair hearing: the Ruggie
principles also enshrine that victims have recourse to judicial and non-judicial remedies.
So companies must make sure they provide opportunities for redress when appropriate.

THINK THEORY 4

In chapter 2, in the context of the extended conceptualization of corporate citizenship, we

have discussed the role of companies in the provision of basic entitlements such as water,
security, and health. From the perspective of John Rawls theory of justice, could you
imagine a situation in which the involvement of private corporations in the provision of
public services (such as the provision of water) could be considered as morally just?

Yes. Provision of public services such as water is arguably essential for people to be able
to enjoy their basic liberties considered as social rights under the extended view of
corporate citizenship discussed in Chapter 2. Where the government is either unable or
unwilling to provide such public services and a private corporation is able to do so, then
the involvement of a corporation in providing these services is morally just, as it
contributes to provision of basic liberties. Such services must be affordable, however,
otherwise they fail to meet Rawls second criterion.

THINK THEORY 5

Think about the ethical arguments used by family members, friends, or colleagues. Can
you see any differences between the arguments used by men and women? What does
this say about the potential contribution of feminist ethics?

Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten 2016. All rights reserved.

 Crane & Matten, Business ethics, 4th Edition, Chapter 3

A feminist ethics, or ethics of care, is about avoiding harm and maintaining healthy
relationships in specific situations, rather than applying abstract principles. It is not about a
female perspective on ethics (as opposed to a male abstract ethics), but is rather about
general principles that transcend gender and which are relevant regardless of gender. It is
possible, even probable, that women and men in ones daily life use different arguments;
but reducing the insights of feminist ethics to a male-female split, or emphasising gender
differences in arguments, risks ignoring the insights of feminist ethics, which are valuable
for all people, regardless of gender.

THINK THEORY 6

To what extent are the consultations discussed here an example of discourse ethics? How
do you think they could be redesigned to more clearly reflect the basic principles of
discourse ethics?

The consultations discussed here are generally problematic ones: they are not good
examples of discourse ethics though adopting measures such as FPIC would definitely
help in that direction.

Discourse ethics involves solving ethical conflicts by providing a process of norm

generation through rational reflection by relevant participants in the process. The following
elements are key: Impartiality; non-persuasiveness; non-coercion; participant expertise.

Adopting the principles of the right to know and the right to decide would be consistent
with discourse ethics. The right to know would provide additional information to
community groups, helping empower them to make better representations and arguments
in support of their points of view leading to a better discussion. Similarly, the right to
decide could be seen as consistent with discourse ethics in that it brings these
communities right into the discussion, as they have the power to decide what should
happen to them. This suggests a better and more productive discussion as well, as
companies would be persuaded to really address local concerns.

On a larger level, these engagements should be made more inclusive, more respectful,
and significant resources should be allocated to local indigenous groups to permit them to
engage with extractive firms on an equal footing. It would also be worthwhile to imaging
engagements as not just negotiations, but also opportunities to learn from one another
and to genuinely persuade one another including potentially that a project should not
proceed.

Andrew Crane and Dirk Matten 2016. All rights reserved.