Abstract
This chapter integrates Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach (SCA) with virtue ethics to examine the normative core of a firm’s enterprise strategy. An enterprise strategy incorporates the interests of various stakeholders to address the question: “What does a firm stand for?” SCA can serve as a normative basis for a firm’s enterprise strategy. In particular, it combines the notions of eudaimonia (flourishing or well-being), arête (virtue), and phronesis (moral or practical wisdom and reflection) with different aspects of SCA, such as stakeholder capabilities, stakeholder values, and stakeholder disadvantage. Building upon the notion of “justice as a virtue,” this chapter states that a firm needs to provide justice (freedom) to its stakeholders so as to develop the stakeholder capabilities, and continually reflect upon it. The freedom would allow the stakeholders to achieve their own well-being or whatever they have reasons to value.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Annas J (2011) Intelligent virtue. Oxford University Press, New York
Arrow K (1951) Social choice and individual values. Wiley, New York
Bertland A (2009) Virtue ethics in business and the capabilities approach. J Bus Ethics 84:25–32
Bohman J (1996) Public deliberation, plurality, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press, Boston
Bryson A (2004) Managerial responses to union and non-union worker voice in Britain. Ind Relat 43(1):213–241
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston
Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Bus Ethics Q 4(4):409–421
Freeman RE, Wicks AC, Parmar B (2004) Stakeholder theory and the corporate objective revisited. Organ Sci 15(3):364–369
Friedman M (1962) Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Gagnon S, Cornelius N (2000) Re-examining workplace equality: the capabilities approach. Hum Resour Manag J 10(4):68–87
Gergen K (1999) Invitation to social construction. Sage
Harrison JS, Wicks AC (2013) Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Bus Ethics Q 23(1):97–124
Hirschman A (1970) Exit, voice, and loyalty. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Holmes F (1991) Shaping character: moral education in the Christian college. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids
Jensen MC (1989) The evidence speaks loud and clear. Harv Bus Rev 67(6):186–188
Jones G, Wicks A (1999) Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad Manage Rev 24:206–221
Jones T, Phelps W, Bigley G (2007) Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Acad Manage Rev 32(1):137–155
Kulkarni S (2009) “Justice as freedom”: do we have a new approach to a firm’s enterprise strategy. Bus Prof Ethics J 28(1–4):3–26
Kulkarni S (2010) Sustaining the equality of employee voice: a dynamic capability. Int J Organ Anal 18(4):442–465
Lloyd-Sherlock P (2002) Nussbaum, capabilities and older people. J Int Dev 14:1163–1172
MacIntyre A (1985) After virtue: a study in moral theory, 2nd edn. Duckworth, London
Meglino B, Ravlin E (1998) Individual values in organizations: concepts, controversies and research. J Manag 24(3):351–389
Mitchell R, Agle B, Wood D (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22:853–886
Moore G (2005) Corporate character: modern virtue ethics and the virtuous corporation. Bus Ethics Q 15(4):659–685
Nussbaum M (1993) Non-relative virtues: an Aristotelian approach. In: Nussbaum M, Sen A (eds) The quality of life. Oxford University Press, New York
Nussbaum M (2001) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9:33–59
Phillips R (1997) Stakeholder theory and a principle of fairness. Bus Ethics Q 7:51–66
Phillips R (2003) Stakeholder legitimacy. Bus Ethics Q 13:25–41
Rawls J (1971) The theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Rokeach M (1973) The nature of human values. Free Press, New York
Sen A (1980) Equality of what? In: McMurrin S (ed) Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge University Press/University of Utah Press, Cambridge, UK
Sen A (1984) Resources, values and development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Sen A (1985a) Commodities and capabilities. North Holland, Amsterdam
Sen A (1985b) Well-being, agency, and freedom: the Dewey lectures: 1984. J Philos LXXXII:169–221
Sen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Sen A (1997) Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica 65:745–780
Sen A (1999) Development as freedom. Andrew A. Knopf, New York
Sen A (2002) Rationality and freedom. The Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Sison A, Fontrodona J (2012) The common good of the firm in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Bus Ethics Q 22(2):211–246
Vogt C (2005) Maximizing human potential: capabilities theory and the professional work environment. J Bus Ethics 58:111–123
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
Kulkarni, S.P. (2017). Capabilities Theory and the Ends of Business. In: Sison, A., Beabout, G., Ferrero, I. (eds) Handbook of Virtue Ethics in Business and Management. International Handbooks in Business Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6510-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6510-8_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6509-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6510-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities