The moral responsibility of people managers

Hi Daniel

I've skimmed your article and can 't find the quote you have picked out, so I'm not sure if what I have to say actually answers the point made.

The problem I have with the quote is the reference to "the constraints of ethical scruples". A corporate entity cannot have ethical scruples and therefore cannot be constrained by them. There is a long section in the article on two competing views of groups or bodies of people. In stating that a corporate entity cannot have ethical scruples, I am coming down on one side of the argument: it seems to me that the individuals that make up a group can clearly have moral scruples but a body corporate, being a notional entity, cannot. In everyday speech we may talk about a company as if it does have a moral character: Company X is an ethical employer, Company Y is dodgy. That is just a convenient shorthand. What we are really commenting on is how the management and staff act.

Coming back to the quote, there are constraints on the activities of a business. Limited liability does not liberate the directors from the consequences of acting unethically (which is not the same as having ethical scruples - you could have scruples but go ahead anyway). If the directors act ethically and with due diligence, then their liability is limited but if they break the law, limited liability won't liberate them from going to prison or whatever penalty the law imposes if responsibility can be traced to them. If they act legally but unethically, limited liability will not liberate them from the consequences of public scorn.

As I couldn't spot the quote I don't know if it was a conclusion drawn by the author of the article or a quote from someone else, but either way, I think it is inaccurate.