Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 129, Issue 1, pp 161–175 | Cite as

Institutionally Driven Moral Conflicts and Managerial Action: Dirty Hands or Permissible Complicity?

Article

Abstract

This paper examines what managers ought to do when confronted with apparent moral conflicts between their managerial responsibilities and the general requirements of morality, specifically when those conflicts are driven by the institutional environment. I examine Google’s decision to enter the Chinese search engine market as an example of such a conflict. I consider the view that Google’s managers engaged in justifiable moral compromise in making the choice to engage in self-censorship and show how this view depends on the idea of genuine moral dilemmas or irresolvable moral conflicts. I argue that there are serious reasons to doubt the existence of genuine moral dilemmas both in the abstract, as well as in the context of managerial responsibility. I propose an alternative account for what Google’s managers ought to do, as well as others who face relevantly similar situations. The account contains two conditions for permissibly contributing to another party’s failure to live up to their moral responsibilities. The first condition is that the manager must intend and act in such a way as to minimize the firm’s complicity in the other entity or actor’s failure, which in most cases will imply a duty for the manager to take actions that aim towards changing the institutional context. Under the second condition, managers ought to communicate to the firm’s constituents that they take seriously the importance of the interests at stake.

Keywords

Corporate responsibility Dirty hands Human rights Intentionality Managerial responsibility Moral conflict Moral dilemmas 

References

  1. Aquinas, T. (1920). Summa Theologiae. (Fathers of the Dominican Province, Trans.) (2nd, Revised Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.newadvent.org/summa/index.html.
  2. Benjamin, M. (1990). Splitting the difference: Compromise and integrity in ethics and politics. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berlin, I. (1950). Political ideas in the twentieth century. Foreign Affairs, 28(3), 351–385. doi:10.2307/20030256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berlin, I. (1969). Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty (pp. 118–172). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brenkert, G. (2009). Google, human rights, and moral compromise. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(4), 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cragg, W. (2012). Ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights: A critical look at the justificatory foundations of the UN framework. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 9–36. doi:10.5840/beq20122213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl, N. O. (1996). Morality, moral dilemmas, and moral requirements. In H. E. Mason (Ed.), Morality, moral dilemmas, and moral requirements (pp. 86–101). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Donagan, A. (1984). Consistency in rationalist moral systems. The Journal of Philosophy, 81(6), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson, T. (1992). The ethics of international business. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Drummond, D. (2010, January 12). A new approach to China. Official Google Blog. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html.
  11. Enlightenment man. (2008, December 4). The economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/12673407?story_id=12673407.
  12. Foot, P. (1983). Moral realism and moral dilemma. The Journal of Philosophy, 80(7), 379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foot, P. (2002). Moral dilemmas revisited. Moral dilemmas: And other topics in moral philosophy (pp. 175–188). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York Times Magazine, p. SM17.Google Scholar
  15. Gardner, J. (2007). Complicity and causality. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 1(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Google. (2012a, June 5). Google Code of Conduct. Google, Inc. Retrieved from http://investor.google.com/corporate/code-of-conduct.html.
  17. Google. (2012b, June 5). Ten things we know to be true. Google, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/about/company/philosophy/.
  18. Gowans, C. W. (1987). Introduction: The debate on moral dilemmas. In C. W. Gowans (Ed.), Moral dilemmas (pp. 3–33). USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gowans, C. (1996). Moral theory, moral dilemmas, and moral responsibility. In H. E. Mason (Ed.), Moral dilemmas and moral theory (pp. 199–215). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, T. E. (1996). Moral dilemmas, gaps, and residues: A Kantian perspective. In H. E. Mason (Ed.), Moral dilemmas and moral theory (pp. 167–198). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hirshman, L. R. (2006). Get to work: A manifesto for women of the world. New York: Penguin Group.Google Scholar
  22. Lepora, C., & Goodin, R. E. (2013). On complicity and compromise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luban, D. J. (2011). Risk taking and force protection. SSRN eLibrary. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1855263.
  24. Marcus, R. B. (1980). Moral dilemmas and consistency. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(3), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mason, H. E. (1996). Introduction. In H. E. Mason (Ed.), Moral dilemmas and moral theory (pp. 3–9). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. McConnell, T. (1996). Moral residue and dilemmas. In H. E. Mason (Ed.), Moral dilemmas and moral theory (pp. 36–47). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. McConnell, T. (2010). Moral dilemmas. In (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moral-dilemmas/.
  28. McLaughlin, A. (2006, January 27). Google in China. Official Google Blog. Retrieved from http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html.
  29. Nagel, T. (1978). Ruthlessness in political life. Public and private morality (pp. 75–91). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Néron, P.-Y. (2010). Business and the polis: What does it mean to see corporations as political actors? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 333–352. doi:10.1007/s10551-009-0266-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruggie, J. (2011). Guiding principles on business and human rights: implementing the United Nations “protect, respect and remedy” framework (No. A/HRC/17/31). United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-21-mar-2011.pdf.
  32. Santoro, M. A. (2009). China 2020: How western business can-and should-influence social and political change in the coming decade. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Scanlon, T. M. (1978). Rights, goals, and fairness. Public and private morality (pp. 93–111). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scanlon, T. M. (2008). Moral dimensions: Permissibility, meaning, blame. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (1988). Moral dilemmas. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Stout, L. (2002). Bad and not-so-bad arguments for shareholder primacy. Southern California Law Review, 75, 1189–1210.Google Scholar
  38. Stout, L. (2012). The shareholder value myth: How putting shareholders first harms investors, corporations, and the public. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Thompson, C. (2006, April 23). Google’s China problem (and China’s Google Problem). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23google.html.
  40. UN Global Compact. (2011). The ten principles. Retrieved from http://www.unglobalcompact.org/index.html.
  41. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2011, June 16). New guiding principles on business and human rights endorsed by the UN Human Rights Council. Press Release. Retrieved from http://www.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/ruggie/ruggie-guiding-principles-endorsed-16-jun-2011.pdf.
  42. Vascellaro, J. E. (2010a, January 14). A heated debate at the top. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704675104575001281662251848.html.
  43. Vascellaro, J. E. (2010b, March 24). Brin drove google to pull back in China. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575141064259998090.html.
  44. Vranas, P. B. M. (2007). I ought, therefore I can. Philosophical Studies, 136(2), 167–216. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9071-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walzer, M. (2006). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations (4th ed.). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  46. Werhane, P. H. (2012). Human rights and business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 193–198. doi:10.5840/beq201222111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wettstein, F. (2009). Multinational corporations and global justice: Human rights obligations of a quasi-governmental institution. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wettstein, F. (2012). Silence as complicity: Elements of a corporate duty to speak out against the violation of human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22(1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williams, B. (1965). Ethical consistency. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, (Supplement), 39, 103–124.Google Scholar
  50. Williams, B. (1972). Morality: An introduction to ethics. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Opus College of BusinessUniversity of St. ThomasMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations