Summary Ethics and the future of
business
Content
Topic 1 - Morals & Ethics.........................................................................................................................2
Crane et al. 2019 - Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of
globalization.......................................................................................................................................2
Awad 2018 – The moral machine experiment....................................................................................7
Ciulla 2020 – Ethics and effectiveness: the nature of good leadership...............................................8
Topic 2 - Behaviours & actions..............................................................................................................11
Crane 2019 – Descriptive ethical theories (making decisions in business ethics).............................11
Banaji 2003 – How (un)ethical are you?...........................................................................................14
Deodhar 2024 – How companies can take a global approach to AI ethics........................................16
Topic 3 – Strategies & stakeholders......................................................................................................17
Griskevicius 2012 - The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behaviour.............................................17
Rasche 2023 - Corporate sustainability.............................................................................................19
BSR 2019 – Five step approach to stakeholder engagement............................................................24
Lankoski 2025 – corporate responsibility meets the digital economy...............................................28
Topic 4 – Challenges & solutions...........................................................................................................31
Kourula 2023 – Ecological approaches to corporate sustainability...................................................31
IPCC 2023 – Climate change 2023 synthesis report..........................................................................35
Atasu 2021 – The circular business model........................................................................................35
Bansal 2025 – Why you need systems thinking now.........................................................................37
,Topic 1 - Morals & Ethics
Crane et al. 2019 - Business ethics: managing corporate
citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization
Normative ethical theories: Rules, guidelines, principles, and approaches that determine right and
wrong. Ethical theories that aim to prescribe the morally correct way of acting; that is, how we ought
to behave. Normative can best be understood as a code of conduct that all rational beings would
adhere to. Descriptive morality applies to a code of conduct adopted by a particular group or society;
it may be the guidelines of a religion. (Normative = prescribes how we ought to behave vs. descriptive
= explains how people do behave).
Ethical absolutism: claims that there are eternal, universally applicable moral principles. Right and
wrong are objective qualities that can be rationally determined, irrespective of the circumstances.
(most traditional Western modernist ethical theories)
Ethical relativism: claims that morality is context-dependent and subjective. There are no universal
right and wrongs that can be rationally determined-it simply depends on the traditions, convictions,
or practices of those making the decision. It is different from descriptive relativism: while the latter
merely suggests that different groups have different ethics, the former proposes that both sets of
beliefs can be equally right. Ethical relativism, as we use it here, is still a normative theory.
Ethical pluralism: alternative approach to absolutism and relativism. This approach accepts that
ought to recognize that incompatible values can be equally legitimate and tolerate them as such. It
differs because it neither puts all ethical perspectives on an equal footing, nor favours one approach
over others. But a worry for pluralism is that it is overly tolerant.
Pluralist approach: combining multiple theories to gain a fuller understanding of complex business
ethics problems.
Difference between religious teaching about ethics and normative ethical theory from philosophy
1. Source of rules and principles: religions invoke a deity/organized system of belief (Quran or bible)
as the source of determining right and wrong (faith). Philosophical theories are based on the
belief that human reason should drive ethics (rationality).
2. Consequences of morality and immorality: religions have an element of spiritual consequence
for the decision maker (salvation, enlightenment, reincarnation, damnation)
Western modernist Ethical theories
The ethical theories in the west are based on philosophical thinking since the Enlightenment
(modernity).
- They are absolutist: The offer a certain rule or principle one can apply to any given situation.
- They are normative: they start with an assumption about the nature of the world a human being.
- They provide us with an unequivocal solution to ethical problems.
- Consequentialist theories: based on the desirability of the outcomes of the action, not desirable?
Not moral)
- Principle-based theories: prioritize what is right, rather than what is desirable, based on
principles. Deontological (philosophical) theories: look at the desirability of principles and
deduce a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the desirability of the consequences. Principle
based theories are ethics of duties and rights and justice.
2
,Teleological theories: Ethical theories that judge actions by their outcomes or consequences. An
action is right if it leads to the best results (e.g. utilitarianism).
Deontological theories: Ethical theories that judge actions by whether they follow rules, duties, or
principles, regardless of the outcomes (e.g. Kant’s ethics).
Consequentialist theories: address right and wrong by emphasizing the achievements of good goals.
Ethical egoism and utilitarianism
1. Ethical egoism
An action is morally right if it’s maximizing someone’s own (short-term) desires or (long-term)
interests. Is about the self-interest of the decision maker. Enlightened egoism: An egoism based on
interest (long-term).
- Corporations might invest in the social environment, for instance, by supporting schools or
sponsoring a new ambulance for the local health service, because an improved level of social
services is in the interest of workforce retention and satisfaction.
- Criticized for being self-serving and that it can’t be moral theory because people will have to
accept that everyone follows their self-interest, despite this not being in their self-interest. It also
condones immoral wrongs as long as the egoist needs are served.
2. Utilitarianism
An action ·is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of
people affected by the action (the greatest happiness principle). May justify harmful actions if they
maximize utility. Is about the social outcomes/collective welfare within a community. It uses cost-
benefit analysis.
- Characteristics of utilitarianism:
1. Consequentialism: the consequences of an action determine if its ethically correct >
teleological theory
2. Hedonism: Utility is identified by pleasure and the absence of pain
3. Maximalism: A right action doesn't only have some good consequences, but the greatest
possible amount compared to the bad
4. Universalism: Consequences for everyone need to be considered
- Hedonistic utilitarianism: Utility measured in term of pleasure and pain.
- Eudemonistic utilitarianism: Utility measured in happiness and unhappiness.
- Ideal utilitarianism: Utility measure in all intrinsically valuable human goods (friendship, love,
trust, etc., not just happiness, pleasure or pain).
- Core problems with utilitarianism.
1. Subjectivity: Deciding what counts as pleasure or pain is subjective. Who is included in the
calculation also matters. For example, Peter Singer argues animals should be included
equally with humans. This raises difficult questions when extending to non-human species.
2. Equal weighing (universalism): Everyone’s welfare must count equally, including distant
communities. A manager’s responsibility is not just to employees or themselves but also to
suppliers’ communities and others affected.
3. Problems of quantification and calculation: Hard to assign monetary or comparable values to
pain and pleasure. Some things, like childhood experiences, life, and death, may have
intrinsic worth beyond calculation. Raises issues in business contexts, e.g., child labour,
health and safety, or putting a value on human life.
4. Distribution of utility: Focus on the majority overlooks minorities who might suffer. Short-
term vs. long-term outcomes matter: pollution may benefit now but harm future
generations.
3
, - New versions of Utilitarianism (by Mill) after the concern about subjectivity:
1. Act utilitarianism: judge individual actions by outcomes.
2. Rule utilitarianism: follow rules (don’t kill/bribe) that maximize utility in the long run.
Principle based Theories: stem from assumptions about basic universal principles of right and wrong.
‘Ethics of Duty’, ‘Rights and Justice/ethics of rights’, Social contract theory
1. Ethics of duty (Kantianism):
Ethical theories that consist of abstract, unchangeable obligations, defined by a set of rationally
deduced a priori moral rules, which should be applied to all relevant ethical problems.
- The right action is acting from duty, guided by the categorical imperative, because humans are
rational moral actors with free will > principle based.
- Categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim (principle or rule) by which you can at
the same time that it should become a universal law. Universal acceptability (only accept it if all
rational being can embrace it) and respects for persons/human dignity (don’t treat humanity as
means to an end)
- Core problems with Kantianism (Ethics of Duty)
1. Undervaluing motivation: Kant holds that only actions done purely out of duty are morally
worthy. This excludes other good motivations, like compassion or care (e.g., paying higher
wages because workers struggle). It also struggles with supererogatory acts (going beyond
duty), such as a nurse staying late to comfort a patient. Kant would not see these as morally
praiseworthy, which seems too rigid.
2. Undervaluing outcomes: Kant’s focus on rules and duties ignores outcomes, even when
breaking a rule could prevent great harm. Example: refusing to lie to protect someone from a
violent gang. In business, strict Kantianism would condemn practices like family members
helping a start-up for free, while utilitarianism might justify it because of the long-term
benefits.
3. Assumption of Rationality: Kant assumes humans are rational beings capable of consistently
applying the categorical imperative. In reality, not everyone (e.g., children, people under
stress, or those with limited reasoning abilities) can act with perfect rationality. Modern life’s
complexity makes it unrealistic to expect people to reason through the categorical imperative
before every decision.
2. Ethics of rights: human rights and justice
Focus on respecting fundamental human rights and fairness. Includes John Locke’s natural rights and
John Rawls’ theory of justice (fairness, equal opportunity, protecting the least advantaged) and the
duties that come with respecting each other’s rights > principle based.
- Human rights: basic, inalienable, and unconditional entitlements that are inherent to all human
beings, without exception.
- Justice: the simultaneous fair treatment of individuals in each situation with the result that
everybody gets what they deserve > fair procedures and outcomes. Both types of fairness aren’t
always possible
Fair procedures: Fairness is determined according to whether everyone has been free to
acquire rewards for their efforts.
Fair outcomes: Fairness is" determined according to whether the consequences (positive
and negative) are distributed in a just manner, according to some underlying principle.
such as need or merit.
Social contract theory: A hypothetical agreement between members of a society and those who
govern it that establishes the inter-relationships, rights, and responsibilities on a fair basis.
4
business
Content
Topic 1 - Morals & Ethics.........................................................................................................................2
Crane et al. 2019 - Business ethics: managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of
globalization.......................................................................................................................................2
Awad 2018 – The moral machine experiment....................................................................................7
Ciulla 2020 – Ethics and effectiveness: the nature of good leadership...............................................8
Topic 2 - Behaviours & actions..............................................................................................................11
Crane 2019 – Descriptive ethical theories (making decisions in business ethics).............................11
Banaji 2003 – How (un)ethical are you?...........................................................................................14
Deodhar 2024 – How companies can take a global approach to AI ethics........................................16
Topic 3 – Strategies & stakeholders......................................................................................................17
Griskevicius 2012 - The Evolutionary Bases for Sustainable Behaviour.............................................17
Rasche 2023 - Corporate sustainability.............................................................................................19
BSR 2019 – Five step approach to stakeholder engagement............................................................24
Lankoski 2025 – corporate responsibility meets the digital economy...............................................28
Topic 4 – Challenges & solutions...........................................................................................................31
Kourula 2023 – Ecological approaches to corporate sustainability...................................................31
IPCC 2023 – Climate change 2023 synthesis report..........................................................................35
Atasu 2021 – The circular business model........................................................................................35
Bansal 2025 – Why you need systems thinking now.........................................................................37
,Topic 1 - Morals & Ethics
Crane et al. 2019 - Business ethics: managing corporate
citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization
Normative ethical theories: Rules, guidelines, principles, and approaches that determine right and
wrong. Ethical theories that aim to prescribe the morally correct way of acting; that is, how we ought
to behave. Normative can best be understood as a code of conduct that all rational beings would
adhere to. Descriptive morality applies to a code of conduct adopted by a particular group or society;
it may be the guidelines of a religion. (Normative = prescribes how we ought to behave vs. descriptive
= explains how people do behave).
Ethical absolutism: claims that there are eternal, universally applicable moral principles. Right and
wrong are objective qualities that can be rationally determined, irrespective of the circumstances.
(most traditional Western modernist ethical theories)
Ethical relativism: claims that morality is context-dependent and subjective. There are no universal
right and wrongs that can be rationally determined-it simply depends on the traditions, convictions,
or practices of those making the decision. It is different from descriptive relativism: while the latter
merely suggests that different groups have different ethics, the former proposes that both sets of
beliefs can be equally right. Ethical relativism, as we use it here, is still a normative theory.
Ethical pluralism: alternative approach to absolutism and relativism. This approach accepts that
ought to recognize that incompatible values can be equally legitimate and tolerate them as such. It
differs because it neither puts all ethical perspectives on an equal footing, nor favours one approach
over others. But a worry for pluralism is that it is overly tolerant.
Pluralist approach: combining multiple theories to gain a fuller understanding of complex business
ethics problems.
Difference between religious teaching about ethics and normative ethical theory from philosophy
1. Source of rules and principles: religions invoke a deity/organized system of belief (Quran or bible)
as the source of determining right and wrong (faith). Philosophical theories are based on the
belief that human reason should drive ethics (rationality).
2. Consequences of morality and immorality: religions have an element of spiritual consequence
for the decision maker (salvation, enlightenment, reincarnation, damnation)
Western modernist Ethical theories
The ethical theories in the west are based on philosophical thinking since the Enlightenment
(modernity).
- They are absolutist: The offer a certain rule or principle one can apply to any given situation.
- They are normative: they start with an assumption about the nature of the world a human being.
- They provide us with an unequivocal solution to ethical problems.
- Consequentialist theories: based on the desirability of the outcomes of the action, not desirable?
Not moral)
- Principle-based theories: prioritize what is right, rather than what is desirable, based on
principles. Deontological (philosophical) theories: look at the desirability of principles and
deduce a duty to act accordingly, regardless of the desirability of the consequences. Principle
based theories are ethics of duties and rights and justice.
2
,Teleological theories: Ethical theories that judge actions by their outcomes or consequences. An
action is right if it leads to the best results (e.g. utilitarianism).
Deontological theories: Ethical theories that judge actions by whether they follow rules, duties, or
principles, regardless of the outcomes (e.g. Kant’s ethics).
Consequentialist theories: address right and wrong by emphasizing the achievements of good goals.
Ethical egoism and utilitarianism
1. Ethical egoism
An action is morally right if it’s maximizing someone’s own (short-term) desires or (long-term)
interests. Is about the self-interest of the decision maker. Enlightened egoism: An egoism based on
interest (long-term).
- Corporations might invest in the social environment, for instance, by supporting schools or
sponsoring a new ambulance for the local health service, because an improved level of social
services is in the interest of workforce retention and satisfaction.
- Criticized for being self-serving and that it can’t be moral theory because people will have to
accept that everyone follows their self-interest, despite this not being in their self-interest. It also
condones immoral wrongs as long as the egoist needs are served.
2. Utilitarianism
An action ·is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of
people affected by the action (the greatest happiness principle). May justify harmful actions if they
maximize utility. Is about the social outcomes/collective welfare within a community. It uses cost-
benefit analysis.
- Characteristics of utilitarianism:
1. Consequentialism: the consequences of an action determine if its ethically correct >
teleological theory
2. Hedonism: Utility is identified by pleasure and the absence of pain
3. Maximalism: A right action doesn't only have some good consequences, but the greatest
possible amount compared to the bad
4. Universalism: Consequences for everyone need to be considered
- Hedonistic utilitarianism: Utility measured in term of pleasure and pain.
- Eudemonistic utilitarianism: Utility measured in happiness and unhappiness.
- Ideal utilitarianism: Utility measure in all intrinsically valuable human goods (friendship, love,
trust, etc., not just happiness, pleasure or pain).
- Core problems with utilitarianism.
1. Subjectivity: Deciding what counts as pleasure or pain is subjective. Who is included in the
calculation also matters. For example, Peter Singer argues animals should be included
equally with humans. This raises difficult questions when extending to non-human species.
2. Equal weighing (universalism): Everyone’s welfare must count equally, including distant
communities. A manager’s responsibility is not just to employees or themselves but also to
suppliers’ communities and others affected.
3. Problems of quantification and calculation: Hard to assign monetary or comparable values to
pain and pleasure. Some things, like childhood experiences, life, and death, may have
intrinsic worth beyond calculation. Raises issues in business contexts, e.g., child labour,
health and safety, or putting a value on human life.
4. Distribution of utility: Focus on the majority overlooks minorities who might suffer. Short-
term vs. long-term outcomes matter: pollution may benefit now but harm future
generations.
3
, - New versions of Utilitarianism (by Mill) after the concern about subjectivity:
1. Act utilitarianism: judge individual actions by outcomes.
2. Rule utilitarianism: follow rules (don’t kill/bribe) that maximize utility in the long run.
Principle based Theories: stem from assumptions about basic universal principles of right and wrong.
‘Ethics of Duty’, ‘Rights and Justice/ethics of rights’, Social contract theory
1. Ethics of duty (Kantianism):
Ethical theories that consist of abstract, unchangeable obligations, defined by a set of rationally
deduced a priori moral rules, which should be applied to all relevant ethical problems.
- The right action is acting from duty, guided by the categorical imperative, because humans are
rational moral actors with free will > principle based.
- Categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim (principle or rule) by which you can at
the same time that it should become a universal law. Universal acceptability (only accept it if all
rational being can embrace it) and respects for persons/human dignity (don’t treat humanity as
means to an end)
- Core problems with Kantianism (Ethics of Duty)
1. Undervaluing motivation: Kant holds that only actions done purely out of duty are morally
worthy. This excludes other good motivations, like compassion or care (e.g., paying higher
wages because workers struggle). It also struggles with supererogatory acts (going beyond
duty), such as a nurse staying late to comfort a patient. Kant would not see these as morally
praiseworthy, which seems too rigid.
2. Undervaluing outcomes: Kant’s focus on rules and duties ignores outcomes, even when
breaking a rule could prevent great harm. Example: refusing to lie to protect someone from a
violent gang. In business, strict Kantianism would condemn practices like family members
helping a start-up for free, while utilitarianism might justify it because of the long-term
benefits.
3. Assumption of Rationality: Kant assumes humans are rational beings capable of consistently
applying the categorical imperative. In reality, not everyone (e.g., children, people under
stress, or those with limited reasoning abilities) can act with perfect rationality. Modern life’s
complexity makes it unrealistic to expect people to reason through the categorical imperative
before every decision.
2. Ethics of rights: human rights and justice
Focus on respecting fundamental human rights and fairness. Includes John Locke’s natural rights and
John Rawls’ theory of justice (fairness, equal opportunity, protecting the least advantaged) and the
duties that come with respecting each other’s rights > principle based.
- Human rights: basic, inalienable, and unconditional entitlements that are inherent to all human
beings, without exception.
- Justice: the simultaneous fair treatment of individuals in each situation with the result that
everybody gets what they deserve > fair procedures and outcomes. Both types of fairness aren’t
always possible
Fair procedures: Fairness is determined according to whether everyone has been free to
acquire rewards for their efforts.
Fair outcomes: Fairness is" determined according to whether the consequences (positive
and negative) are distributed in a just manner, according to some underlying principle.
such as need or merit.
Social contract theory: A hypothetical agreement between members of a society and those who
govern it that establishes the inter-relationships, rights, and responsibilities on a fair basis.
4
