IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jbuset/v53y2004i4p353-364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Separation of Technology and Ethics in Business Ethics

Author

Listed:
  • Kirsten Martin
  • R. Freeman

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to draw out and make explicit the assumptions made in the treatment of technology within business ethics. Drawing on the work of Freeman (1994, 2000) on the assumed separation between business and ethics, we propose a similar separation exists in the current analysis of technology and ethics. After first identifying and describing the separation thesis assumed in the analysis of technology, we will explore how this assumption manifests itself in the current literature. A different stream of analysis, that of science and technology studies (STS), provides a starting point in understanding the interconnectedness of technology and society. As we will demonstrate, business ethicists are uniquely positioned to analyze the relationship between business, technology, and society. The implications of a more complex and rich definition of ‘technology’ ripple through the analysis of business ethics. Finally, we propose a pragmatic approach to understanding technology and explore the implications of such an approach to technology. This new approach captures the broader understanding of technology advocated by those in STS and allows business ethicists to analyze a broader array of dilemmas and decisions. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Suggested Citation

  • Kirsten Martin & R. Freeman, 2004. "The Separation of Technology and Ethics in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 353-364, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:53:y:2004:i:4:p:353-364
    DOI: 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043492.42150.b6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043492.42150.b6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000043492.42150.b6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew C. Wicks & R. Edward Freeman, 1998. "Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 123-140, April.
    2. Freeman, R. Edward, 2000. "Business Ethics at the Millennium," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 169-180, January.
    3. Raphael Amit & Lawrence Glosten & Eitan Muller, 1993. "Challenges To Theory Development In Entrepreneurship Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(5), pages 815-834, September.
    4. Rosenthal, Sandra B. & Buchholz, Rogene A., 2000. "The Empirical-Normative Split in Business Ethics: A Pragmatic Alternative," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 399-408, April.
    5. Rogene A. Buchholz & Sandra B. Rosenthal, 2002. "Technology and Business: Rethinking the Moral Dilemma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 45-50, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kirsten Martin, 2008. "Internet Technologies in China: Insights on the Morally Important Influence of Managers," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 489-501, December.
    2. Henrik Rydenfelt, 2025. "Inquiring Value: The Pragmatist Turn in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 1-11, February.
    3. Tae Wan Kim & Thomas Donaldson, 2018. "Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 5-20, March.
    4. John McVea, 2007. "Constructing Good Decisions in Ethically Charged Situations: The Role of Dramatic Rehearsal," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 70(4), pages 375-390, February.
    5. Jose Luis Retolaza & Ricardo Aguado & Leire Alcaniz, 2019. "Stakeholder Theory Through the Lenses of Catholic Social Thought," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 969-980, July.
    6. R. Freeman & Kirsten Martin & Bidhan Parmar, 2007. "Stakeholder Capitalism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 74(4), pages 303-314, September.
    7. Alan Singer, 2010. "Integrating Ethics and Strategy: A Pragmatic Approach," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(4), pages 479-491, April.
    8. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    9. Ding, Mingfa, 2014. "Political Connections and Stock Liquidity: Political Network, Hierarchy and Intervention," Knut Wicksell Working Paper Series 2014/7, Lund University, Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies.
    10. Tarcia Camily Cavalcante Quezado & Nuno Fortes & William Quezado Figueiredo Cavalcante, 2022. "The Influence of Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Ethics on Brand Fidelity: The Importance of Brand Love and Brand Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    11. Jill Brown & William Forster, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Theory: A Tale of Adam Smith," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 301-312, January.
    12. Giuseppe Criaco & Philipp Sieger & Karl Wennberg & Francesco Chirico & Tommaso Minola, 2017. "Parents’ performance in entrepreneurship as a “double-edged sword” for the intergenerational transmission of entrepreneurship," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 49(4), pages 841-864, December.
    13. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    14. João J. M. Ferreira & Cristina I. Fernandes & Sascha Kraus, 2019. "Entrepreneurship research: mapping intellectual structures and research trends," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 181-205, February.
    15. Szaban Jolanta & Skrzek-Lubasińska Małgorzata, 2018. "Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship: A Theoretical Approach," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 26(2), pages 89-120, June.
    16. Chad Albrecht & Jeffery Thompson & Jeffrey Hoopes & Pablo Rodrigo, 2010. "Business Ethics Journal Rankings as Perceived by Business Ethics Scholars," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 227-237, August.
    17. Robbin Derry, 2012. "Reclaiming Marginalized Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 111(2), pages 253-264, December.
    18. Assâad El Akremi & Inès Dhaouadi & Jacques Igalens, 2008. "La responsabilité sociale de l’entreprise sous l’éclairage des critical management studies:vers un nouveau cadre d’analyse de la relation entreprise-société," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 11(3), pages 65-94, September.
    19. Yunis, Manal & Tarhini, Abbas & Kassar, Abdulnasser, 2018. "The role of ICT and innovation in enhancing organizational performance: The catalysing effect of corporate entrepreneurship," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 344-356.
    20. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jbuset:v:53:y:2004:i:4:p:353-364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.