Meaningful work and unethical work: The crisis in Australian financial advice

Recurrent scandals in business ethics demonstrate that work is, on occasion, unambiguously unethical. It is not clear, however, exactly how the concept of ‘meaningful work’ can be applied to such work, and whether, for example, work can be both unethical and meaningful. This article explores three different conceptualisations of meaningful work: where meaningful work is considered to be subjective, primarily subjective but with objective constraints or primarily objective (adopting Alasdair MacIntyre's neo‐Aristotelian framework). These competing conceptualisations are examined in relation to the ethical failures in the Australian financial advice industry. From 2009, a range of parliamentary inquiries, including a Royal Commission, documented significant ethical failures at both individual and institutional levels across the industry, which caused substantial hardship to tens of thousands of clients. Among the subsequent reforms was a drive towards the professionalisation of financial advice through enhanced educational standards, a code of ethics and the development of a professional identity. This case demonstrates the different ways in which the conceptualisations of meaningful work can be applied. However, Alasdair MacIntyre's scheme of practices, institutions, internal and external goods is presented as a preferred conceptualisation of the case, accommodating considerations of both ethics and meaningful work and contributing towards a theory of good work in general.