IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/buseth/v32y2023i2p868-876.html

Business ethics: Between Friedman and Freeman? A response to A Puzzle about Business Ethics

Author

Listed:
  • Matthias P. Hühn

Abstract

The biggest research programme within business ethics is arguably Corporate Social Responsibility and all its related streams (Corporate Citizenship, Social Justice, etc.) While there seems to be widespread agreement that business ethics is situated between the amoral or even immoral view of Milton Friedman as explicated in his 1970 New York Times paper, and the moral view expounded by R. Edward Freeman, this essay challenges that view. Friedman, maybe owed to his flamboyant writing style and crude and purely rhetorical oversimplifications has been misinterpreted to advocate for managers to be completely amoral maximisers of profitability. This misinterpretation has become common wisdom, despite him clearly stating that the law and the moral standards of surrounding society must limit profit‐seeking behaviour. Freeman's stakeholder theory, on the other hand, is seen as being on the other end of the continuum, arguing for selflessness—another misinterpretation, as I argue with Ed Freeman's help. Instead, I suggest that both Friedman and Freeman represent the virtuous mean of the business ethics continuum and not its extremes because they both base their theories on the idea of the free and socially embedded individual. The two vicious ends of the continuum are inhabited by the unreal, atomised, completely a‐social and selfish individual on the one end, and by the equally unreal collectivised self‐less individual on the other. The mainstream in business ethics has declared the collective and selfless end to be the ideal that must guide practice and research. The selfish and the selfless strawmen have prevented a proper debate in business ethics for too long.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthias P. Hühn, 2023. "Business ethics: Between Friedman and Freeman? A response to A Puzzle about Business Ethics," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 868-876, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:buseth:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:868-876
    DOI: 10.1111/beer.12523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12523
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/beer.12523?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agle, Bradley R. & Donaldson, Thomas & Freeman, R. Edward & Jensen, Michael C. & Mitchell, Ronald K. & Wood, Donna J., 2008. "Dialogue: Toward Superior Stakeholder Theory," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 153-190, April.
    2. R. Edward Freeman & Gordon G. Sollars, 2022. "A puzzle about business ethics," Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 272-273, January.
    3. Peter Seele, 2018. "What Makes a Business Ethicist? A Reflection on the Transition from Applied Philosophy to Critical Thinking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 647-656, July.
    4. Matthias P. Hühn & Claus Dierksmeier, 2016. "Will the Real A. Smith Please Stand Up!," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 119-132, June.
    5. John Hasnas, 2018. "Should Corporations Have the Right to Vote? A Paradox in the Theory of Corporate Moral Agency," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 657-670, July.
    6. Claus Dierksmeier, 2011. "The Freedom–Responsibility Nexus in Management Philosophy and Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 263-283, June.
    7. Ciepley, David, 2013. "Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 139-158, February.
    8. Velasquez, Manuel, 2003. "Debunking Corporate Moral Responsibility," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 531-562, October.
    9. Freeman, R. Edward & Liedtka, Jeanne, 1991. "Corporate social responsibility: A critical approach," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 92-98.
    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. Matthias P. Hühn, 2018. "CSR - the Cuckoo’s Egg in the Business Ethics Nest," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 279-298, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Matthias P. Hühn, 2019. "Adam Smith’s Philosophy of Science: Economics as Moral Imagination," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Dirk C. Moosmayer & Sandra Waddock & Long Wang & Matthias P. Hühn & Claus Dierksmeier & Christopher Gohl, 2019. "Leaving the Road to Abilene: A Pragmatic Approach to Addressing the Normative Paradox of Responsible Management Education," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(4), pages 913-932, July.
    5. Michaela Haase & Elke Schuessler & Ute Schmiel & Günther Ortmann & Andreas Suchanek & Dennis Schoeneborn, 2025. "The Past, Present and Future of the Corporate Actor: Ontological, Epistemological and Theoretical Considerations," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 643-680, December.
    6. Abeysuriya, Kumudini & Mitchell, Cynthia & White, Stuart, 2007. "Can corporate social responsibility resolve the sanitation question in developing Asian countries?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 174-183, April.
    7. Andrew Lynn, 2022. "Ethics, Economics, and the Specter of Naturalism: The Enduring Relevance of the Harmony Doctrine School of Economics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 661-673, July.
    8. Claus Dierksmeier, 2018. "Qualitative Freedom and Cosmopolitan Responsibility," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 109-123, February.
    9. Heugens, P.P.M.A.R. & Kaptein, S.P. & van Oosterhout, J., 2007. "Contracts to Communities: A Processual Model of Organizational Virtue," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2007-023-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    10. Danny Zhao‐Xiang Huang, 2022. "An integrated theory of the firm approach to environmental, social and governance performance," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(S1), pages 1567-1598, April.
    11. Marcelo Royo-Vela & Jonathan Cuevas Lizama, 2022. "Creating Shared Value: Exploration in an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    12. 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.
    13. Caroline Flammer, 2015. "Does Corporate Social Responsibility Lead to Superior Financial Performance? A Regression Discontinuity Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2549-2568, November.
    14. André, Kévin, 2013. "Why Should Business Education Care About Care? Toward an Educare Perspective," ESSEC Working Papers WP1315, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    15. Ma Asunción Esteso-Blasco & María Gil-Marqués & Juan Sapena, 2021. "Leadership in Economy of Communion Companies. Contribution to the Common Good through Innovation," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 77-101, April.
    16. Heidi Reed, 2024. "“When money is more valuable than people…”: The pandemic as a call for business to care," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 435-455, March.
    17. Tim Mulgan, 2019. "Corporate Agency and Possible Futures," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 154(4), pages 901-916, February.
    18. Nina Evans & Janet Sawyer, 2010. "CSR and stakeholders of small businesses in regional South Australia," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 433-451, August.
    19. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    20. Layla Branicki & Senia Kalfa & Alison Pullen & Stephen Brammer, 2023. "Corporate Responses to Intimate Partner Violence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 187(4), pages 657-677, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:buseth:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:868-876. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/26946424 .

    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.