000			01905nam a22001577a 4500
999			_c526415 _d526415
008			240603b ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
100			_aRönnegard, David _953299
245			_aCorporate accountability. not moral responsibility
260			_aJournal of Human Values
300			_a30(1), Jan, 2024: p.32-37
520			_aThe aim of this article is to briefly spell out why corporate moral agency is a fallacy and to show how this conclusion should shift the field of business ethics more in the direction of political philosophy and the rule of law. An argument based on a false assumption can be valid, but it cannot be sound. If corporate moral agency is a fallacy, and thus also moral prescriptions for corporations, how do we salvage the field of business ethics? To the extent that business ethics is about corporate behaviour (rather than individual managerial behaviour), the field can shift its foundational paradigm from ethics (which requires the attributes of moral agency) to legal accountability (which can be imposed instrumentally on corporate legal agents). By letting our elected representatives legislate the norms of acceptable corporate behaviour we can hold corporate legal entities legally accountable. What these norms should be then becomes the central focus of business ethics seen through the lens of political philosophy.- Reproduced https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09716858231209644
650			_aCorporate Moral Agency, Business Ethics, Political Philosophy, Rule of Law, Legal Accountability, Corporate Behavior, Moral Prescriptions, Ethical Paradigm, False Assumptions, Legal Agents, Norms of Corporate Conduct, Managerial Responsibility, Regulatory Frameworks, Governance, Economic Policy, Ethical Fallacy, Social Responsibility, Legislative Oversight. _953300
773			_aJournal of Human Values
906			_aBUSINESS ETHICS
942			_cAR