Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 88, Supplement 4, pp 693–705 | Cite as

The “I” in ISCT: Normative and Empirical Facets of Integration



Integrative social contracts theory (ISCT) is a novel approach to normative questions and has been widely evaluated, discussed, and applied by academics and practitioners alike. While the “I” in ISCT leads the title, it has not received the analytical attention it deserves, especially since the “integrative” component in ISCT is multifaceted and at the conceptual core of the theory. In this paper we therefore take a closer look at two facets of integration. First, we examine the normative integration that takes place in ISCT. For our analysis we draw on theories of legitimacy and obligation. Second, given that empirical inquiry is an important part of the normative integration, we take a closer look at how research that has applied or used ISCT has embraced the empirical components of the theory. This analysis of the normative–empirical integration focuses on problems and realities of empirical inquiry in ISCT.


social contract integrative social contracts theory moral free space hypernorms stakeholder theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bailey, W. and Spicer, A. 2007. When Does National Identity Matter? Convergence and Divergence in International Business Ethics. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6): 1462-1480.Google Scholar
  2. Boatright, J. R.: 2000, ‘Contract Theory and Business Ethics: A Review of Ties that Bind’, Business & Society Review 105(4), 452–466Google Scholar
  3. Brudney, N. 1991. “Hypothetical Consent and Moral Force,” Law and Philosophy 10(3): 235-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bucar, B., Glas, M. and Hisrich, R. D. 2003. Ethics and Entrepreneurs: An International Comparative Study. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 261-281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cava, A. and Mayer, D. 2007. Integrative Social Contract Theory and Urban Prosperity Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics 72, 263-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Copleston, F. 1993. A History of Philosophy: From French Enlightenment to Kant. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Donaldson, T. 1982. Corporations and Morality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Donaldson, T. 1986. Fact, Fiction, and the Social Contract: A Reply to Kulten. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 5(1): 40-46.Google Scholar
  9. Donaldson, T. 1989. The Ethics of International Business. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Donaldson, T. 1994. When Integration Fails: The Logic of Prescription and Description in Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2): 157-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T. W. 1994. Towards a Unified Conception of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Review 19(2): 252-284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T. W. 1995. Contractarian Business Ethics: Current Status and Next Steps. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(2): 173-186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donaldson, T. & Dunfee, T. W. 1999. Ties that Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Donaldson, T. and Dunfee, T. W. 2005. Integrative Social Contracts Theory. In Patricia Werhane and R. Edward Freeman, eds., The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management Vol. II, Business Ethics, second edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Douglas, M.: 2000, ‘Integrative Social Contracts Theory: Hype Over Hypernorms’, Journal of Business Ethics 26(2), 101–110Google Scholar
  16. Dunfee, T. W. 1991. Business Ethics and Extant Social Contracts. Business Ethics Quarterly 1(1): 23-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunfee, T. W. 2006. A Critical Perspective of Integrative Social Contracts Theory: Recurring Criticisms and Next Generation Research Topics. Journal of Business Ethics 68(3): 303-328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunfee, T. W. and Donaldson, T. 2002. Social Contract Approach to Business Ethics: Bridging the “Is-Ought” gap. In Robert E. Frederick, eds., A Companion to Business Ethics, second edition. MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Dworkin, R. 1975. “The Original Position, in Reading Rawls, Daniels, N. ed. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  20. Hampton, J. 1997. Political Philosophy. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hartman, L. P., Shaw, B. and Stevenson, R. 2003. Exploring the Ethics and Economics of Global Labor Standards: A challenge to Integrated Social Contract Theory. Business Ethics Quarterly 13(2), 193-220.Google Scholar
  22. Hisrich, R. D., Bucar, B. and Oztark, S. 2003. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Business Ethics: Cases of Russia, Slovenia, Turkey, and United States. Cross Cultural Management 10(1): 3-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Husted, B. W. 1999. A Critique of the Empirical Methods of Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 20, 227-235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahn, W. A. 1990. Toward an Agenda for Business Ethics Research. Academy of Management Review 15(2): 311-328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeley, M. 1995. Continuing the Social Contract Tradition. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(2), 241-255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kulten, J. 1986. Donaldson’s Social Contract for Business. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 5(1): 28-39.Google Scholar
  27. Lucas, L. A. 2001. Integrative Social Contracts Theory: Ethical Implications of Marketing Credit Cards to U.S. College Students. American Business Law Journal 38(2), 413-440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mayer, D. and Cava, A. 1995. Social Contract Theory and Gender Discrimination: Some Reflections on the Donaldson/Dunfee model. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(2), 257-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen, R. P.: 2000, ‘Do Internal Due Process System Permit Adequate Political and Moral Space for Ethics Voice, Praxis, and Community?’, Journal of Business Ethics 24(1), 1–27Google Scholar
  30. Phillips, R. A. and Johnson-Cramer, M. E. 2006. Ties that Unwind: Dynamism in Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Journal of Business Ethics 68, 283-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rakowski, E. 2001. Taking and Saving Lives. In John Harris, eds., Bioethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rawls, J.: 2003, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York)Google Scholar
  33. Robertson, D. C. and Ross, W. T. 1995. Decision-making Processes on Ethical Issues: The Impact of a Social Contract Perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly 5(2): 213-240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowan, J. 1997. Grounding Hypernorms: Toward a Contractarian Theory of Business Ethics. Economics and Philosophy 13(1): 107-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheppele, K. L. and Waldron, J. 1991. Contractarian Methods in Political and Legal Evaluation. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities 3: 195-230.Google Scholar
  36. Simmons, A. J. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Simmons, A. J. 2008. Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Soule, E.: 2002, ‘Managerial Moral Strategies – in Search of a Few Good Principles’, Academy of Management Review 27(1), 114–124Google Scholar
  39. Spicer, A., Dunfee, T. W., and Bailey, W. J. 2004. Does National Context Matter in Ethical Decision Making?: An Empirical Test of Integrative Social Contracts Theory. Academy of Management Journal 47(4): 610-620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Trevino, L. K. and Weaver, G. R. 1994. Business ETHICS/BUSINESS Ethics: One Field or Two? Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2): 113-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weaver, G. R. and Trevino, L. K. 1994. Normative and Empirical Business Ethics: Separation, Marriage of Convenience, or Marriage of Necessity? Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2): 129-143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Werhane, P. H. 1994. The Normative/Descriptive Distinction in Methodologies of Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 4(2): 175-180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wolff, J. 1996. An Introduction to Political Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ethics and Business LawUniversity of St. ThomasMinneapolisU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Legal Studies and Business EthicsThe Wharton School, University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations