CV OF Coudhry Babar

Corporate Integrity and Public Interest: A Relational Approach to Business Ethics and
Leadership
Author(s): Marvin T. Brown
Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 66, No. 1, Proceedings of the 18th Eben Annual
Conference in Bonn (Jun., 2006), pp. 11-18
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123808 .
Accessed: 10/11/2014 04:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 121.52.158.248 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:06:25 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of Business Ethics (2006) 66: 11-18
DOI 10.1007A10551-006-9050-4
Corporate Integrity and Public Interest:
A Relational Approach toBusiness Ethics
and Leadership
? Springer 2006
Marvin T. Brown
ABSTRACT. This paper approaches the question of
corporate integrity and leadership from a civic perspec
tive, which means that corporations
are seen as members
of civil society, corporate members are seen as citizens,
and corporate decisions are
guided by civic norms. Cor
porate integrity, from this perspective, requires that the
communication patterns that constitute interpersonal
relationships
at work exhibit the civic norm of reciprocity
and acknowledge the need for security and the right to
participate. Since leaders are members of corporate rela
tionships, their integrity will be determined by the
integrity of these interpersonal relationships, and by their
efforts to
improve them.
KEY WORDS: corporate integrity, leadership, civic
ethics, relationships
Itmay seem from the title of my address that I
have a lot to cover in a short amount of time. On the
other hand, I believe that there is a strong congru
ence between corporate integrity and public interest,
which makes it possible to focus on a specific
question. Here is the question Iwant to address: Can
leaders have integrity in a corporation that lacks integrity?
What is the relationship, in other words, between
the integrity of business leaders and the integrity of
their corporations? If business leaders can have
integrity leading corporations without integrity,
then many of the current leadership programs for
business students, senior managers and executives
make a lot of sense. On the other hand, if business
leaders cannot have integrity in corporations that
lack integrity, then most of these programs will need
some
major re-tooling.
The first step in answering this question is to
develop a picture of corporate integrity that shows
its place in civil society. This picture will also reveal
the need for a civic ethics, which in turn will help us
understand the role of business leaders in the mul
tiple systems in which corporations exist.
Different views of corporations
As you know, people have very different views of
corporations. Some people see them as the property of
owners. Corporations are things that you can buy and
sell. They are commodities. This is true, from a
financial perspective. However, since leaders lead
people rather than things, this view is not adequate
for a conversation about corporate integrity and
leadership.
We can also see
corporations
as
corporate citizens.
This has become a rather popular view. This view
sees
corporations
as
being responsive
to the com
munities in which they exist
? as a good citizen.
Assuming this view, however, entails some risks. It
risks focusing on a corporation's "good" works,
instead of their everyday operations. Automobile
companies, for example, may give thousands for
health care while spending billions advertising SUVs.
This is simply crazy making.
The citizen view also tends to privatize the very
notion of citizenship. Instead of the term referring to
those who are involved in designing how we should
Uve together, it tends to portray citizenship
as
engaging in voluntary projects that aid those in need.
We may disagree about the seriousness of these
dangers, but for now, I think we can agree that
Marvin T. Brown teaches business and organizational ethics at
theUniversity of San Francisco and at the Saybrook Grad
uate School in San Francisco, California. His latest book,
Corporate Integrity, was published byCambridge University
Press in 2005.

12Marvin T. Brown
corporations are not really citizens. So what are they?
They can be seen aspurposeful human organizations. At
the most elementary level, a corporation is an
organization designed to accomplish some goal. And
what are organizations?
Definition of organizations
Think about how an organization begins. People
start talking together about running a business. They
develop a mutually understood vocabulary or ter
minology, and slowly establish specific patterns of
communication. These communication patterns, it
seems tome, are what people join when they join an
organization.
Organizations, in other words, can be understood
as a series of communications, both verbal and
nonverbal, inwhich people participate. The verbal
communication includes mission and policy state
ments, aswell as daily conversations. The non-verbal
includes work design, daily schedules and organiza
tional structures.
As organizations, corporations can also be seen as
human systems that exist in larger systems, and their
role in these systems largely determines their pur
pose. As our various social systems have become
more complicated and more threatening to the
environment, this notion of a corporation's purpose
has become more critical.
For example, I would suggest that in order to
understand the purpose of automobile companies,
we need to see them as part of the transportation
system. Other agencies also belong to this system, of
course, such as
governments, non-profits,
and other
firms. In fact, much of the funding for the road and
highways comes from public funds. So the system
itself has multiple actors. Furthermore, this trans
portation system is embedded in and dependent on
the natural environment.
The first question is: "What kind of transporta
tion system do we want?" Ifwe want a sustainable
transportation system, for example, so future gen
erations will not have to pay the costs of our
indulgences, automobile corporations would have to
radically change their line of current products.
The big question is who should determine the
design of this transportation system? That is a big
question, but not the right one. I think the right
question iswhat should be the perspective and the
commitments of those various agencies
?
public and
private
?
that are part of this system? And the answer
to this question, I think, is that they should take up a
civic perspective and approach their work together
as citizens.
Relationship between economy and civil
society: A civic perspective
This answer, of course, raises the issue of the
appropriate relationship between the economy and
civil society. A dominant view looks at these two
entities as belonging to different spheres, each with
its own rules and values. Iwant to suggest a different
view; namely that the economy exists in the context
of civic society. A contextual analysis, it seems to
me, recognizes the dependence of the market
economy on all kinds of social capital aswell as the
rule of law.
This picture of corporations embedded in larger
systems and of the economy embedded in civil
society seems like an adequate description of reality,
more adequate, Iwould say, than the idea of separate
spheres. It also invites us to look at the relationship
between corporations and the systems inwhich they
exist from a civic perspective.
Iwant to suggest that we begin doing ethics as
citizens and that we see people at work as citizens
and corporations as members of civil society. This
civic perspective and civic context can be used to
overcome the current privatization of business ethics
and return ethics to politics. By the "privatization of
ethics" I am referring to ethical projects based on the
separation of the world of business from the world of
politics or public concern. If business ethics were to
become a civic ethics, itwould represent a return to
Aristotle's idea that ethics belongs to politics.
Although Aristotle has been a major source
for contemporary ethics and especially
an ethics of
virtue, his belief that ethics belongs to politics has
been largely forgotten. For Aristotle and for the
Greeks in general, itwas impossible to be virtuous
outside of human society. As Martin Oswald has
commented, for Aristotle, "a hermit is incapable of
acting virtuously" (Oswald, 1962, p. xxiv)
This does not mean that we need to follow the
same civic virtues as one finds in classical Greek

Corporate Integrity and Public Interest 13
society. In fact, a new civic ethic would require
some
long
conversations about what civic norms
would be appropriate. My list would include the
following:
Integrity
?
pursuing relational wholeness
Reciprocity
?
mutual giving and receiving
Dialogue
?
engaging in open conversations
Justice
-
treating people fairly
Freedom
? access to goods for self-development
Care
-
solidarity with others
Harmony
?
a well-ordered and secure
society
Can a market economy be held accountable to
this list of norms? Without question, there are
other values or norms, such as resource
produc
tivity or efficiency that belong to a market
economy. Such norms, however, would not nec
essarily violate the civic norms Usted here. A more
serious question is whether the market economy
has its own rules that could override civic norms.
What is the relationship between market compe
tition and civic norms?
To answer this question, let us imagine different
types of competition on a continuum, with the
competition of ideas on the one end and the com
petition of war on the other. In a civic setting, the
conflict between different ideas is resolved by
engaging in pubUc discourse where the most per
suasive arguments carry the
day
or at least carry a
majority of those involved. In war, the conflict is
resolved by force and miUtary power.
So we have public deUberation on one end of
the spectrum and war on the other. Where should
we place market transactions? This question be
comes easier to answer if we first look at another
type of competition that is often seen as very
similar to market competition; the competition in
sports.
A basic difference between the competition in
sports and the competition in poUtics is that the
interactions in sports are guided by the rules of the
game instead of civic norms. In boxing, for example,
the rules of the game aUow one person to attempt to
throw a knockout blow to the opponent's jaw,
something that would be considered quite uncivil in
pubUc discourse.
Different sports have different rules, of course,
and some
games
are closer to civic norms than
others. The point here, however, is that sports allow
the suspension of civic norms for the sake of the
game, and then opposing teams or individuals must
abide by these rules to defeat the opponent.
I want to suggest that business is not a sport.
Unlike sports, all the participants in the market have
not agreed to suspend civic norms. Quite the
opposite, people depend on them. The market place
is different than the sports arena. Business transac
tions should be guided by civic norms, including the
norms of reciprocity and integrity. Furthermore,
because the norms do not change from the public
square to the market place, nor should citizens lose
their civic rights and responsibilities when they go to
work. Business, in other words, should not operate
according to its own rules, but according to the
norms of civil society. Peter Ulrich has made a
similar point:
The economic players, in all of their roles, must
first of all be approached as citizens who
acknowledge certain moral duties; as reflective
consumers and capital investors, as critically loyal
"organization citizens" in the working world, and
as citizens of the state... Understood in this way,
the republican ethos is indivisible. And it is also
expressed in the fundamental willingness of the
individual to pursue only those private goals,
which are compatible with the legitimacy con
ditions of awell-ordered society of free and equal
citizens. (Ulrich, 2002, p. 28)
From a civic
perspective,
we can see that
"Corporate
integrity and Public Interest" are not two spheres,
but rather two containers where one contains the
other.
The civic perspective suggests an alternative to the
business case for corporate social responsibility,
namely the civic case for corporate integrity.
The differences are not inconsequential. The civic
case provides a platform for all citizens to participate
?
both corporate insiders and outsiders. It also
overcomes the privatization of citizenship and of
ethics, and allows us in business ethics to also include
the civic realm in our horizon. Finally, as a civic
ethic, business ethics can safeguard the integrity of
corporations, aswell as the integrity of civil society
and of democratic institutions. Business ethics, in
other words, can join the challenge of developing

14Marvin T. Brown
social systems that promote the integrity of all the
parts that make up the whole.
From this civic perspective, we can now finish
our picture of corporate integrity and then see
whether leaders can have integrity when their cor
porations lack it.
A picture of corporate integrity
We begin with our understanding of corporations as
organizations, constituted by on-going verbal and
non-verbal communication patterns. This is impor
tant because corporate integrity wiU depend on the
character of these communication patterns. What is
said and not done; what is said and not said; who in
included and not included; what topics are addressed
and not addressed; aU these choices will determine
the level of integrity of any corporation.
The most common aspect of integrity is the
relationship between what is said and what is done,
or what we could caU consistency between word and
deed. This is the way Charles Watson uses integrity
in his book Managing with Integrity:
There is wholeness in what the person with
integrity says and does. ...He seems undisturbed
by the opinions that others hold or express about
him and what he honors. His upright conduct is
made possible through steadfast adherence to
unbending principles and standards, and his
character is marked by an undaunted quest for
important ends far larger than his own needs,
comfort, and interests. (Watson, 1991, p. 171)
This understanding of personal integrity is certainly
praiseworthy in some cases. Taken as the complete
definition of integrity, however, it leaves us with a
potentially dangerous use of the term. Imagine for a
moment that this person with integrity is a totally
unconscious individual, who is unaware of his
privileges, but beUeves that everyone has had similar
opportunities as he has had.
Does his integrity here
-
being undisturbed by the
opinions of others and practicing steadfast adherence
to unbending principles and standards
-
help or
prevent him from becoming conscious of his rela
tionships with others in larger social and economic
systems? If integrity means wholeness, and if a
particular consistency prevents
one from an awareness
of one's whole situation, then consistency would
actually prevent the creation of integrity, so relational
awareness is the second aspect of corporate integrity.
The third part of any complete picture of cor
porate integrity is pursuing a worthwhile purpose.
To ascribe integrity to an organization or group
means that they are praiseworthy for their endeavors.
They are up to some good. Organizations designed
to take advantage of others, to exploit the weak or
elderly even if they are consistent in their actions,
will not be praised for having integrity. Consistency
is not enough; integrity also requires doing some
thing good. These various meanings of integrity are
not really opposed to each other, but rather together
give us a standard not only for assessing the integrity
of any corporation, but also for improving it.
There are five different dimensions of corporate
life that are subject to such an assessment and
improvement: the cultural, interpersonal, organiza
tional, social and natural. Each of these dimensions
can either block or enable corporate integrity. (See
Figure 1.)
It is impossible to explore what is required on
each of these dimensions to promote a holistic view
of corporate integrity. I have attempted to do this in
my book on corporate integrity (Brown, 2005). I
will focus today on the interpersonal, but since all
five are interrelated, we can briefly mention each
one's requirement for integrity.
The challenge on the cultural level is to be open
to different cultures because integrity as wholeness
requires us to include other cultures.
On the interpersonal level, the challenge is to
acknowledge the multiple relationships that one
brings towork aswell as the relationships developed
at work.
Cultural
Interpersonal
Organizational
Social
Natural
Figure 1. Five dimensions of corporate integrity.

So what do family and civic relationships add to the
notion of reciprocity? Iwant to suggest that the core
meaning of family relationships can be found in the
psychological field of attachment theory. One of the
key contributors to this field, John Bowlby writes:
Human infants, we can safely conclude, like
infants of other species, are preprogrammed to
develop in a socially cooperative way; whether
they do so or not turns in high degree on how
they are treated." (Bowlby, 1988, p. 9)
Bowlby's conclusion means that humans are not
preprogrammed to be greedy or selfish, as some
might think. Instead, they are wired to develop in
and through cooperative relationships.
Bowlby's research supports the feminist position
proposed by Held (1993) and others that the mother
and child image more correctly represents our hu
man nature than the image of the "economic man."
This certainly would be contrary to much of the
Western, patriarchal tradition, and yet, it does seem
to conform to our deepest experiences. We begin
connected to others, not separated from them. I
think that integrity as relational awareness means that
this need for secure relationships must be recognized
in the world of work.
While humans have always been members of
families, they have not always been members of civic
communities in which they could be citizens. In a
kingdom, for example, people are subjects, not citi
zens. So what makes one a citizen rather than a
subject? Perhaps the most important difference is that
a citizen has a say in determining the qualifications for
citizenship, and a subject does not. Ifyou do not have
a say, then you are subject to other people's decisions.
To participate in, or at least to have your views
represented in, the process of making decisions about
the character and structure of the communities to
which you belong is a core meaning of citizenship.
Somehow, this core meaning should be recognized at
work. Adding reciprocity to the notions of secure
and civic, we see that meeting the challenge of
interpersonal integrity would require conversations
that promote secure civic reciprocal relationships.
(See Figure 2.)
So how would business leaders fit in these rela
tionships? It all depends on whether we take up an
individual or a relational view of leadership. The
On the organizational level, integrity requires that
corporations have aworthwhile purpose that can be
a reliable guide for their decisions.
A corporation's social challenge is for corpora
tions to develop cooperative relationships with other
private and government agencies. We saw this
dimension earlier when we looked at the social
context of automobile companies.
Finally, the fifth challenge calls for the inclusion
of corporations in the natural environment so that all
of nature, both human and nonhuman communities,
prospers together.
So, a complete picture of corporate integrity
would consist of verbal and non-verbal communi
cation patterns that are open to differences and dis
agreements conscious of human
relationships,
guided by a worthwhile purpose, engaged in civic
cooperation, and promotes prosperity for all natural
communities.
Getting there will take wise and effective leaders.
Itwill take leaders with integrity. To see what this
means, we need to spell-out in more detail the
interpersonal dimension of corporate integrity. This
is the dimension that looks at the conversations
among workers and managers in terms of relational
awareness.
Interpersonal relational awareness
Integrity as wholeness requires us to consider that
work relationships are not limited to relationships at
work, but also must include the fact that workers are
also members of families and members of civil
society. Just as corporations are not isolated entities
but are
parts of
larger systems, so also are workers
members of other communities that must be rec
ognized, especially the communities of family and
civic life. Given this relational awareness, what
would integrity require?
We already know that interpersonal relationships
at work should be guided by civic norms. Business
relationships should not be subject to the rules of
some game. Without too much analysis, we can
probably agree that a key norm for relationships at
work is reciprocity, especially reciprocity of
exchange. Exchanges should be such that each party
gains, at least in the long run, and no one is exploited
for another's
advantage.

16Marvin T. Brown
Core Meaning of
Family
Relationships
The Need for
Security
Work
Relationships
as
Secure
Civic Reciprocity
Core Meaning of
Civic
Relationships
The Right to
Participate
Figure 2. Interpersonal relationships
at work.
individual view sees leaders and foUowers as essen
tiaUy separate from each other and the leader uses his
or her skiUs and talents to bridge the gap between
them. Leadership, in this view, is essentiaUy a form
of marketing.
The relational view, on the other hand, sees the
leader as a participant with the followers in on-going
conversations and co-creating each other. Leaders
and followers, in other words, are
co-dependent
on
each other. Both rely on a secure base and the right
to participate. Both foUowers and leaders are mem
bers of the organization. FinaUy, we can say that
leaders and foUowers both belong to civ? society and
should relate to one another as citizens.
Does this make business leaders civic leaders?
WeU, this is somewhat risky, especiaUy if we see
civic leaders only as individuals. In her recent
book on leadership (1999), Barbara KeUerman ar
gues that poUtical leaders have become more Uke
business leaders and business leaders have become
more Uke poUtical leaders. There seems to be
some truth to her observation. In the United
States, for example, presidents are now judged by
how weU the economy is doing more than by
how weU pubUc institutions are doing. Mayors of
cities and governors of states are praised for their
economic development successes more than for
their successes in improving the possibiUties for
participatory democracy.
So while poUtical leaders have become more
business-Uke, business leaders have in certain respects
become more democratic. Even more so, the lead
ership Uterature has become more concerned with
democratic practices. KeUerman (in KeUerman,
1999) offers the foUowing Ust of ideas that she has
found in books on corporate leadership:
Create a vision
Foster diversity
Empower everyone
Create networks
Hang loose
Always learn
Rethink motivation
Level with everyone
This list applies not only to corporate and political
leaders, from Kellerman's perspective, but also to
non-profit leaders. "The key tasks are the same (for
for-profits and non-profits): creating a vision, com
municating the vision, enlisting and empowering
others, planning strategically and tactically, and
implementing."
This individualistic view of leaders does not ne
glect that leaders will lead followers. It just assumes
that the leader's skills and talents can craft the con
nection between leaders and followers. Integrity in
this situation resides in the character of the leader,
not in the relationship between leaders and follow
ers. Accordingly, it has all the dangers that we
identified earlier with limiting integrity to individual
consistency. It ignores relational awareness and does
not identify with a group's worthwhile purpose.
This individualistic view does allow Kellerman
to emphasize the similarity between business and
political leaders. I also think there are important
similarities: they are both bound by civic norms,
or we could say that they are both civic leaders,
because they both exist in civic relationships with
their followers. The organizations they belong to,
however, are quite different, and this has some
consequences.
Political leaders, at least in democratic societies,
are elected by their followers and they serve as their
representatives. The relationship between politicians
and voters can be quite dynamic, with politicians
trying to educate their representatives, but in the
final analysis, the leadership task is to represent the
will of the electorate, not the leader's will. In
political organizations, integrity resides in the
relationship between politicians and the people they
represent.
The story is quite different for business leaders.
Business leaders have the task of leading their orga
nization's workers to accomplish some goal. The

purpose of the organization is not to design how we
should live together, which is the goal of politics,
but to get something accomplished. As I continually
heard when Iwas working with Levi Strauss and
Company: the goal was "to get the pants out the
door." Business leaders lead to get the work done,
which is not true of political leaders.
Here is the hitch: Ifwe argue that workers should
be recognized as citizens, which we have, and we see
the role of business leaders to direct the work that
workers do, why should citizen/workers submit to
these orders? As we said before, people submit to
another's rule in a kingdom, not in a democracy.
Can the relationship between workers and managers,
followers and leaders atwork, really be a relationship
among citizens? What gives one citizen in the
workplace the right to give directives to other
citizens?
McMahon (1994) provides us an answer: he
makes a distinction between domination and sub
ordination, and then argues that citizens can subor
dinate themselves to others if it enables them to
accomplish their goals, which in case would be to
pursue the corporation's worthwhile purpose. As
McMahon points out, this is similar to awidely held
justification for obeying laws in general. Obeying
laws provides stability and order, which most people
believe is to their advantage.
If the work relationships are secure, civic and
reciprocal, and the leader or managers directives
facilitate the accomplishment of the company's
goals, then workers have not given up their rights as
citizens, but rather have exercised them in choosing
to work together in a productive and effective way.
This assumes, of course, that the work isworthwhile
doing. Workers need to be connected to the larger
purpose of the work, to see their part in the larger
whole, and to accept this purpose asworthwhile. In
such cases, their work will have integrity, aswill the
relationships inwhich they do their work.
If leaders participate in these relationships of
integrity, they can enjoy the same quality of human
relationships as other members. One could argue, in
fact, that leaders must be members before they can
be leaders. The term "leader" is a relational term.
Like parent or teacher, it does not signify an isolated
person, but a person in relation. Once a person is a
member of an organization, and understands the
work of promoting relationships of integrity, then
they can actively lead other members in two ways:
by designing the context for conversational integrity
and by showing signs of corporate integrity.
Designing the context for corporate integrity
Designing and redesigning organizations is largely a
process of changing their verbal and nonverbal
communication patterns. Paul Dolan, a leader in a
large winery in California describes it this way:
As leaders, our job is to cultivate our people,
bringing out their best and create a rich, human
whole greater than the sum of the parts. That's
culture: something bigger than the individuals
within a group, which they nevertheless are an
integral part of. Teamwork becomes more natu
ral, because everyone knows why the work the
next person is doing is valuable. If they're talking
about that context all the time, if they are con
stantly looking at their workplace, their products
and their processes from the standpoint of ful
filling themselves and their purpose, you can
hardly keep up with the ideas they bring forth.
(Dolan and Elkjer, 2003, pp. 64-65)
Perhaps more than anything else, leading teams and
groups involves giving signs of appropriate expec
tations. These expectations
are not
only about
coming forth and speaking one's mind, but also
about the appropriate boundaries between persons,
among different teams, aswell as between corpora
tions and other civic organizations.
Leaders can also be
participants
in conversations,
and through their participation, display that corpo
rate integrity is part of the corporate agenda. Cor
porate integrity becomes apparent when people
practice openness, provide safety,
voice their con
cerns, refer to worthwhile purposes, cooperate with
others, and include nature in their plans.
So, now we can return to our
question: Can
leaders have integrity in a corporation that lacks
integrity? I think we know the answer. Leaders have
integrity only to the degree that they participate in
and promote corporate integrity. This may seem
obvious to some and intolerant to others. Cannot we
have it both ways? What happened to seeing both
sides?Well, contrary to the hosts of talk shows, in

18Marvin T. Brown
some cases both sides do not have equaUy valid and
sound arguments. I think this is one of those cases.
Corporate integrity requires secure civic and re
ciprocal relationships pursing aworthwhile purpose.
People who work toward developing such rela
tionships would certainly be leading with integrity.
We need such leaders. Iwould hope that business
ethics would become a civic ethic, and join the work
of improving the integrity not only of corporations,
but also of civil society. I think we would discover
new ways to support and to celebrate the work of
business leaders and other civic leaders who find
their integrity in the integrity of their organizations.
References
Bowlby, J.: 1988, A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment
and Health Human
Development (Basic Books, New
York).
Brown, M. T.: 2005, Corporate Integrity: Rethinking
Organizational Ethics and Leadership (Cambridge Uni
versity Press, Cambridge).
Dolan, P. with T. Elkjer: 2003, 'True to Our Root:
Fermenting
a Business Revolution (Bloomberg Press,
Princeton).
Held, V.: 1993, Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture,
Society, and Politics (The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago and London).
Kellermann, B.: 1999, Reinventing Leadership: Making the
Connection Between Politics and Business (State Univer
sity of New York Press, New York).
McMahon, C: 1994, Authority and Democracy: A General
Theory of Government and Management (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey).
Oswald, M.: 1962, Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, trans.
Martin Oswald, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Ulrich, P.: 2002, 'Ethics and Economies', in Zsolnai
Laszlo (ed.), Ethics in theEconomy: Handbook ofBusiness
Ethics (Peter Lang, Oxford).
Watson, C. E.: 1991, Managing with Integrity: Insightsfrom
America's CEOs (Praeger, New York).
Department of Philosophy
University of San Francisco,
2130 Fulton Street,
San Francisco, CA, 94117-1080,
U.S.A.
E-mail: mbrown@workingethics.com

CV OF Coudhry Babar

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to CV OF Coudhry Babar

Similar to CV OF Coudhry Babar (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CV OF Coudhry Babar