Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 72, Issue 4, pp 359–374 | Cite as

An Adversarial Ethic for Business: or When Sun-Tzu Met the Stakeholder

  • Joseph HeathEmail author


In the economic literature on the firm, especially in the transaction–cost tradition, a sharp distinction is drawn between so-called “market transactions” and “administered transactions.” This distinction is of enormous importance for business ethics, since market transactions are governed by the competitive logic of the market, whereas administered transactions are subject to the cooperative norms that govern collective action in a bureaucracy. The widespread failure to distinguish between these two types of transactions, and thus to distinguish between adversarial and non-adversarial relations, has led many business ethicists to develop a “uniform” moral code. Yet in market transactions, the checks and balances built into the system of commercial exchange are such as to permit more instrumental forms of behavior. In administered transactions, by contrast, these checks and balances are absent, and thus the institutional context calls for much greater exercise of moral restraint. In this paper, I begin the task of developing an adversarial ethic for business. According to this view, the competitive environment licenses a greater range of “self-interested” behavior, but also imposes its own constraints on the strategies that firms may adopt in the pursuit of their interests.


adversarial ethics competition market failure corporate social responsibility philosophy of sport 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Applbaum A. I. (1999) Ethics for Adversaries. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K., Debreu G. (1954) Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy. Econometrica 27: 82–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow K. (1973) Social Responsibility and Economic Efficiency. Public Policy 21: 303–317Google Scholar
  4. Austin, J. L.: 1979 “A Plea for Excuses,” in idem, Philosophical Papers, 3rd edition (Oxford University Press, Oxford)Google Scholar
  5. Baier K. (1958) The Moral Point of View. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron M. (2005) Justifications and Excuses. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 2: 387–413Google Scholar
  7. Baumol W. (1974) Business Responsibility and Economic Behavior. In: Anshen M. (eds) Managing the Socially Responsible Corporation. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Blake J., Amat O., Dowds J. (1998) The Ethics of Creative Accounting. In: Gowthorpe C., Blake J. (eds) Ethical Issues in Accounting. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Boatright J. R. (2002) Justifying the Role of the Shareholder. In: Bowie N. E. (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Business Ethics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Braithwaite J. (1981) The Limits of Economism in Controlling Harmful Corporate Conduct. Law and Society Review 16: 481–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buchanan A. (1996) Toward a Theory of the Ethics of Bureaucratic Organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly 6: 419–440Google Scholar
  12. Clark R. C. (1985) Agency Costs versus Fiduciary Duties. In: Pratt J. W., Zeckhauser R. J. (eds) Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Coase R. (1937) The Nature of the Firm. Economica 4: 386–405Google Scholar
  14. Coleman J. W. (1989) The Criminal Elite: The Sociology of White Collar Crime. St. Martin’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Commission for Fair Play (1993) The Attitude of Canadian Youth and Coaches Concerning Fair Play. Government of Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  16. Easterbrooke F. H., Fischel D. R. (1991) The Economic Structure of Corporate Law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Economist: 2005. ‘Survey: Corporate Social Responsibility’, The Economist, Jan. 20Google Scholar
  18. Feezell R. M. (1988) Sportsmanship. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  19. Fraleigh Warren. (1984) Right Actions in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank R. H., Cook P. J. (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Friedman M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  22. Friedman, M.: 1970, ‘The Social Responsibility of Business is the Increase its Profits’, New York Times Magazine, Sept. 13Google Scholar
  23. Galbraith J. K. (1952) American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. Houghton Mifflin, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  24. Gauthier D. (1982) No Need for Morality: The Case of the Competitive Market. Philosophic Exchange 3: 41–54Google Scholar
  25. Gauthier D. (1986) Morals by Agreement. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Goodpaster K. (1991) Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis. Business Ethics Quarterly 1: 53–73Google Scholar
  27. Heath J. (2001) The Efficient Society. Penguin, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  28. Heath J. (2003) A Market Failures Approach to Business Ethics. In: Hodgson B. (eds) The Invisible Hand and the Common Good. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  29. Langtry B. (1994) Stakeholders and the Moral Responsibility of Business. Business Ethics Quarterly 4: 431–443Google Scholar
  30. Leaman O. (1988) Cheating and Fair Play in Sport. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipsey R., Lancaster K. (1956) The General Theory of the Second Best. Review of Economic Studies 24: 11–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McLean B., Elkind P. (2003) The Smartest Guys in the Room. Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Schotter A. (1981) The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Schultz W. J. (2001) The Moral Conditions of Economic Efficiency. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  35. Shipman A. (1999) The Market Revolution and Its Limits. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon R. L. (1988) Good Competition and Drug-Enhanced Performance. In: Morgan W. J., Meier K. V. (eds) Philosophic Inquiry in Sport. Human Kinetics, Champaign, ILGoogle Scholar
  37. Skillen A. (1998) Sport is for Losers. In: McNamee M. J., Parry S. D. (eds) Ethics and Sport. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Steenbergen J., Buisman A., van Hilvoorde I. (2001) Meanings of Fair Play in Competitive Sport. In: Steenberger J., De Knop P., Elling A. (eds) Values and Norms in Sport. Meyer and Meyer Sport, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Williamson O. E. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Of PhilosophyUniversity Of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations