Abstract
Modern business has an uneasy relationship with the idea of social obligation. At the heart of this tension, lies a paradox played out over the course of history. As business became ever larger and more powerful during the 20th century, the pursuit of economic objectives intensified, often at the expense of society. At the same time, as the pursuit of economic goals intensified so did the interest in the social obligations of business. The case of the United States is a case in point. The proliferation of the corporate governed business was more rapid in the States than anywhere in the industrialized world at the turn of the century. But it was also in the United States, and this is probably related to the latter, that business leaders were especially sensitive and attuned to discussions about duties beyond the pursuit of profit.
In these discussions about the social responsibilities of business, the nascent American business school and its academic practitioners stepped into the debate, offering their own specialist brand of expertise and knowledge. From the 1940s up until the 1970s academic analysis was dominated by the concept of corporate social responsibility (or CSR). Academics exhausted countless hours exploring what CSR could do to the bottom line—doing well by doing good, in other words. From the 1980s, the idea of business ethics emerged, mainly as a more reflective and sober counterpart, as well as, critique of CSR research. For business ethicists, applying the insights of classical philosophical ethics to modern business, it does not necessarily pay to be socially responsible; social responsibilities can, and should, be costly to the bottom line. Key business ethicist, such as Edward Freeman, were lacerating in their critique of modern business and its impact on society and humanity, demanding significant reform of the business sector.
One of the key intellectual figures and contributors who emerged from the CSR versus business ethics maelstrom was Norman Bowie, an academic professor who served in both the Philosophy Department and the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. It was with his 1990 book Business Ethics that Bowie crossed the floor from being a pure philosopher to the world of applied philosophy. But it was the application of a particular school of ethical philosophy, or rather as a particular philosophical ethicist, that Bowie established his academic reputation and influence. Here, Bowie adopted and championed the ideas of 18th century Prussian thinker Immanuel Kant. The deontological approach to ethics was conceived by Kant as a critical counterweight to the British utilitarian philosophers, for whom ethical judgements should focus on the actual consequences, or ends, of human behaviour. In contrast, Kant favoured quality of intention and duty, rather than consequences, and the treatment of individuals and their dignity as an end in itself. His ethical approach proved counterintuitive and set high ethical demands, as well as standards, but it proved highly influential and even revolutionary not only in a philosophical sense but also in a practical real world sense.
Norman Bowie’s particular contribution to management research and education has been his insistence, consistently pursued throughout his career, that ethical theory, especially Kant, is relevant to modern-day business. Bowie’s interest and use of classical philosophy did not gain unanimous support from his immediate academic community. Increasingly, the field of business ethics has been criticized by insiders such as Andrew Stark (1994) for adopting overly abstract and anachronistic theories, as they were created in another age and place (normally 18th century Europe). As such they fail to have any relevance or practical purpose in the real world of business. Bowie has resiliently begged to differ on this point and for this he should be admired and his work carefully read.
At the same time, Norman E. Bowie (to give him his full professional moniker) is a figure who divides opinion within the field of business ethics. As mentioned above, business ethicists, especially key figures such as Edwards Freeman, cultivated a philosophical and political role-distance from modern business. Bowie, by contrast, as a respected figure in management/business education, proved a conciliatory figure towards the business sector. But Bowie’s olive branch to the world of commerce stems not from strategic posturing or pragmatism but from deep-held ethical convictions; and Kantian ethics were foremost in shaping his principled stance vis-à-vis the world of business. He made unequivocal claims about the compatibility between Kantian ethics and modern capitalism as well as the dominant form of global capitalism—the multinational corporation. Crucially Bowie regarded the pursuit of Kantian ethics by business as not being antithetical to the pursuit of profit. In fact, a business that styles itself along Kantian principals will see, as a result, an improved balance sheet. More controversially, Bowie also suggests that global business enterprises actually promote Kantian ideals, arguing for example that the global reach of multinational firm promote better labour conditions and human rights in the developing world (see Bowie, 1999). This pro-business synthesis with Kantian philosophy has been termed by Bowie himself as ‘Kantian Capitalism’.
A book length assessment of Bowie’s contribution is well overdue, considering the growing significance of business ethics and his own personal intellectual contribution to this field. And so Arnold and Harris’ edited collection, Kantian Business Ethics, which fills this gap in the academic book market, is most welcome. But was it worth the wait and is it worth consulting for anyone involved or interested in the field?
In terms of assessing the corpus of Bowie’s oeuvre, there are chapters by colleagues and some of the biggest star draws in business ethics, both allies and detractors alike. On the friends, or even disciples, side, there is Cohen and Dienhart’s chapter which lends support to Bowie’s Kantian account of whether business has any moral duty towards protecting the environment: apparently it has no such obligation. Joanna Ciulla’s chapter tackles Bowie’s controversial views about the duty of companies to secure meaningful work for employees. Again Bowie’s position is largely reinforced: companies are not duty-bound from a Kantian perspective to provide meaningful work but they should treat employees with dignity.
The chapters are mainly authored by figures who pay homage to Bowie as one of the foremost business ethicists, crucially helping to establish and secure the development of this field. But he has his foes, and Bowie is something of an easy target: the main bone of contention, as European/British commentators Jones et al. (2005) have already noted, is that he dilutes Kant to accord with his business friendly predilections. For example, chapters by Patricia Werhane and Richard De George, respectively, take issue with Bowie’s confidence in the ability of modern business to act in a manner that is consistent with Kantian ethical principles.
Authors within this collection of essays/article also use deontological ethics to assess contemporary developments and issues in modern business. This is done to scrutinize Bowie’s ideas but also as a way of asserting the continued relevance of philosophical ethics. One such example is provided by Richard Nielsen’s chapter on the credit crunch and the use of leveraged investment vehicles, namely, CDOs or collateralized debt obligations. He argues that, had the banking system behaved in a way that was consistent with Bowie’s version of Kantian ethics, then the credit crisis would have been averted. As an ethical deconstruction of the credit crunch this is welcome, albeit a little obvious in its assessment. However, Arnold and Harris’ coverage of the contemporaneous is somewhat limited. For example, this edited text is largely silent on the issue of globalization and the multinational corporation. This is a bit of an omission in that during the mid-1990s Bowie was writing about the Kantian qualities of global corporations. For Bowie (1999), the global, cross-border reach of multinationals promotes equality of treatment for women, discourages corruption and even advances world peace. When the American journalist Thomas Friedman made similar assertions about the qualities of global capitalism, the cultural commentator and philosopher, Slavoj Žižek, polemically dubbed him a liberal communist—a figure who is a critical apologist of global capitalism for the sake of saving capitalism itself. Could the same pejorative moniker be applied to Bowie? In fact the book does lack something of a more radical perspective on Bowie’s work, with most of the contributors hailing from North American management schools. There is nothing wrong with this, per se, but it means the writing style and political positioning of the contributors vary only marginally.
The collection closes with Bowie replying to his critics—a generous offer by the editors of this collection. However, it is the penultimate chapter by Reynolds and Dang, which offers a highly positive assessment of his work. The said authors test Bowie’s bottom-line dictum: that every business leader and manager should adopt Kant for the simple reason that it not only benefits the individuals involved but also their organizations. However, this is a utilitarian argument dressed up in a Kantian suit. The point for Kant is that high ethical principles of good will, moral consistency and a respect for others should be pursued independent of their outcomes. And yes, Reynolds and Dang found that being Kantian is ultimately beneficial for business. But ultimately that should not matter for any self-respecting Kantian, unless you are a Kantian capitalist, of course.