IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v18y2008i02p213-232_01.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding the Separation Thesis

Author

Listed:
  • Sandberg, Joakim

Abstract

Many writers in the field of business ethics seem to have accepted R. Edward Freeman’s argument to the effect that what he calls “the separation thesis,” or the idea that business and morality can be separated in certain ways, should be rejected. In this paper, I discuss how this argument should be understood more exactly, and what position “the separation thesis” refers to. I suggest that there are actually many interpretations (or versions) of the separation thesis going around, ranging from semantic, empirical and reformative to some which are straightforwardly normative. While it is generally agreed that the separation thesis should be rejected, then, there is not as much agreement on what this thesis actually says. I suggest that whether or not we should reject the separation thesis, however, ultimately must depend on how we understand it more exactly—on certain interpretations, the thesis comes out as more or less trivially false, but we should demand more evidence or argument to reject it on certain other interpretations. This result presents a challenge for all those writers who are committed to the rejection of the separation thesis.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandberg, Joakim, 2008. "Understanding the Separation Thesis," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 213-232, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:213-232_01
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X00010940/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McKenzie R. Rees & Ann E. Tenbrunsel & Kristina A. Diekmann, 2022. "“It’s Just Business”: Understanding How Business Frames Differ from Ethical Frames and the Effect on Unethical Behavior," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(3), pages 429-449, March.
    2. Tae Wan Kim & Thomas Donaldson, 2018. "Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 5-20, March.
    3. Richard Nielsen & Felipe Massa, 2013. "Reintegrating Ethics and Institutional Theories," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 115(1), pages 135-147, June.
    4. Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet & Marion Fortin, 2014. "One Justice or Two? A Model of Reconciliation of Normative Justice Theories and Empirical Research on Organizational Justice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 124(3), pages 435-451, October.
    5. Lauren Purnell & R. Freeman, 2012. "Stakeholder Theory, Fact/Value Dichotomy, and the Normative Core: How Wall Street Stops the Ethics Conversation," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 109(1), pages 109-116, August.
    6. Miguel Alzola, 2018. "Decent Work: The Moral Status of Labor in Human Resource Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 147(4), pages 835-853, February.
    7. Andrew Abela & Ryan Shea, 2015. "Avoiding the Separation Thesis While Maintaining a Positive/Normative Distinction," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(1), pages 31-41, September.
    8. Tommy Jensen & Johan Sandström, 2013. "In Defence of Stakeholder Pragmatism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 225-237, May.
    9. Henri Kuokkanen & William Sun, 2020. "Companies, Meet Ethical Consumers: Strategic CSR Management to Impact Consumer Choice," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 403-423, October.
    10. Pedro FrancŽs-G—mez & Lorenzo Sacconi & Marco Faillo, 2012. "Behavioral Business Ethics as a Method for Normative Business Ethics," Econometica Working Papers wp42, Econometica.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:18:y:2008:i:02:p:213-232_01. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.