Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Aristotle’s akrasia and Corporate Corruption: Redefining Integrity in Business

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite many twenty-first century efforts to minimize corporate corruption, initiatives taken by local governments, global organizations, academic institutions, or the corporate world itself, it is clear that corporate corruption is perpetuating itself. In this paper, I apply the Aristotelian concept of “akrasia” (moral weakness) in order to provide an interpretation of corporate corruption as an act of moral failure and misapprehension of the right thing to do, if not an act of wickedness, which originates with lack of integrity. By utilizing Aristotle’s philosophical framework, I attempt a redefinition of integrity not only with reference to the Aristotelian moral and intellectual virtues but also with a combination of theoretical and practical wisdom, that is, a connection between theory and action, definitive of moral consistency. Through this interpretation, I also wish to further emphasize the need for a philosophical background of contemporary managerial practices for a more effective countering of corporate corruption.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A reductive account of virtue reduces it to its behavioural neglecting its inner dimension, while the non-reductive account states that for an action to derive from a state of character, it should reflect the inner qualities of the agent (Alzola 2015: 301). For Alzola, social scientists should be more concerned with virtue as “virtuousness” rather than with objective or authentic virtue; they should establish the link between character and virtuous behavior (307).

  2. I am borrowing the phrase by Pearce (2013: 32–34) who examines the business life as one in the domain of action (“praxis”) to be distinctive from the life of contemplation (“theoria”).

  3. As connected with “phronesis”, as we shall see below.

  4. See below on the Aristotelian “spoudaios”, as the person who demonstrates an advanced moral caliber.

  5. Eudemian Ethics H15, 1248 b 34 – 37. In general, Aristotle presents the “kalokagathos” man as a person who makes good choices for the sake of what they represent, since they originate from virtue itself.

  6. See DeLeon 2015 and Heywood 1997, who mostly focus on political corruption in terms of the dealings between public office and the private sector. Other studies have also indicated the connection that exists between corporate corruption and culture, especially in the domain of international business. In particular, Campbell and Goritz 2014, used a qualitative approach to study similarities of organization culture across different corrupt organizations. They found that corrupt organizations perceive themselves in a war that accepts the view “the end justifies the means”, as well as that managers and employees differ in their perception of organizational culture.

  7. Hereafter, it will be used in its abbreviated form NE. The translation of the Nicomachean Ethics used is by Irwin (1999).

  8. Mele 1985, 389.

  9. Ibid., 385.

  10. Bobonich and Destree (2007) also indicate that in certain passages in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says that the akratic person acts against his own decision not to eat the sweet and, in other passages, especially in De Anima Γ.11, he presents akrasia as a conflict between two desires. At the same time, in other passages, Aristotle appears to defend a rather intellectualist idea of akrasia, i.e. a sort of a lack of knowledge and not a lack or weakness of will (139). Kenny (1979) and Irwin (1992) have allowed for a conception of will in Aristotle.

  11. The Aristotelian term “eupraxia” can be interpreted as “acting well”. As Aristotle states: “Acting well or badly requires thought and character” (Z2, 1139 a 34 – 35); he also refers to this term as “telos” (goal, purpose): “An unqualified goal is what we achieve in action, since acting well is the goal, and desire is for the goal” (1139 b 3 – 4). We notice that Aristotle identifies “eupraxia” with the goal of action, that is, acting well is what we should aim at when proceeding with a moral choice.

  12. “Ἐκ τῶν δύο προτάσεων τὸ συμπέρασμα γίνεται πράξις”.

  13. “Κατά τον ὀρθόν λόγον”.

  14. “Μετά τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου”.

  15. Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

  16. Cf. Brickhouse 2003, 17.

  17. Cf. Cai and He 2014, who use a quantitative analysis to argue that corporate environmental responsibility is an intangible asset, since it creates firm value.

  18. Cf. Discussion of corporate personhood by Eabrasu (2018: 28–47).

  19. NE Z11, 1143 a 8 – 10: “φρόνησις ἐπιτακτική ἐστὶ”.

  20. On the basis of Metaphysics, Λ10, 1075 b 20–22: “τὰ τιμιώτατα τῆ φύσει”.

  21. NE Z7, 1141 a 17 – 18: “Περί τὰς ἀρχάς ἀληθεύειν”.

  22. Cf. below on the connection between the exercise of theoretical and practical wisdom.

  23. Kenny 1992, 23–42.

  24. Cf. NE, A7, 1098 a 18–20.

  25. Cf. Tsoukas and Cummings (1997), who emphasize the significance of the Aristotelian virtue ethics approach for the organization studies.

  26. Schneider et al. (2015) advocate that a socially responsible behavior “is founded in a moral character which is intrinsically motivated rather than promises of rewards or threats of sanction” (p.15). Such a behavior “becomes routinized, integrated in strategy and embedded in organizational culture”.

  27. Cf. Aspasius 1889, Classicorum Aristotelicum Graecorum XIX.1: 56.18-23. In this passage, Aspasius, an Aristotelian commentator, emphasizes the significance of practical wisdom, since its assistance is required in order for the agent to define exactly what must be done or how a particular conduct should be exhibited.

  28. Cf. Koutras 1987, 70–73.

  29. In contemporary scholarship, Williams (1981: 49) argues that “integrity is not a virtue: it is not related to motivation as the virtues are. It’s not a disposition which yields motivation, as generosity or benevolence do”. He believes that those who hold it as virtue should explain why it is not associated with characteristic thoughts or motivations. This view grasps integrity as a kind of moral identity, acting in accordance with one’s beliefs. It is a sort of internal consistency. In a way, he means that, for Aristotle, a person acts in integrity if he or she remains true to himself or herself in action, which is closer to the identity sense of integrity. In a different line of thought, Scherkoske (2012) suggests that integrity is an epistemic virtue: it neither disposes agents to particular motivations nor characteristic thoughts (“In the same way that epistemic virtues, such as accuracy, or open-mindedness, do not specify any particular content, integrity does not supply a characteristic thought either”). The main point is that by assuming the virtue of integrity one is not supposed to be motivated to discover the truth or provide any justification about it. This view grasps integrity as the moral capacity of standing for something. In another study, Cox et al. (1999) argue that integrity is a virtue but it functions as a rather complex term: a person may exhibit integrity by deciding to resign from his job in the event of a conflict of values with his employer, or somebody else may choose to stay as a way of exhibiting moral disagreement; in fact, resigning for him would be lack of integrity.

  30. Roca examines the significance of teaching practical wisdom in business schools (Roca 2008).

  31. Cf. note 26.

  32. Cf. Hartmann (1962: 439–448), who considers the Aristotelian virtues as values as opposed to wickedness which is a vice.

  33. In the Eudemian Ethics, B5, 1222 b 20 -31 and B9, 1227 b 28 – 30, Aristotle explicitly states the analogy between ethics and the theoretical sciences and he also indicates that the theoretical life has moral relevance, since it contributes to “eudaimonia”.

  34. In particular, Aristotle states that it would be better for the wise person to collaborate with others, but he is still the most self-sufficient of all men (“βέλτιον δ’ ἲσως συνεργούς ἒχων, ἀλλ’ ὃμως αὐταρκέστατος”).

  35. NE, Z7, 1141 a 17 – 18.

  36. On the basis of NE A13, 1102 a 5 – 6.

  37. Cf. NE A12, 1102 a 2 – 4.

  38. NE A7, 1097 b 20 (“τῶν πρακτῶν οὖσα τέλος”).

  39. Cf. Kenny (1992: 23–42), supports that “eudaimonia” cannot be taken to be a totality of goods, because it would not be able to serve as an intrinsic value.

  40. Cf. Heinaman (1988: 31–49) who take “eudaimonia” to be the supreme good which lacks nothing, hence attaching to it a value per se.

  41. Cf. NE Z7 1141 b 3 – 8. In this passage, Aristotle indicates that people like Anaxagoras and Thales are considered to be wise, but they may not be practically wise, such as Pericles. At the same time, however, in Z5, 1140 b 7–10, Aristotle indicates that Pericles would be considered as practically wise but not necessarily wise, since he is associated with various ills of the Peloponnesian war.

  42. NE Z13, 1145 a 6 – 9.

  43. NE K8, 1178 b 33 – 1179 a 16

  44. Cf. 1178 b 5 – 6.

  45. Cf. NE, I7, 1177 a 27 – b1.

  46. EN, Γ4, 1113 a 24–34. Cf. A8, 1099 a 24.

  47. Ibid., Γ4, 1113 a 33–34.

  48. Ibid., K7, 1177 a 27 – 1177 b 1.

  49. Cf. E2, 1130 b 30 – 33.

  50. Ibid., E3, 1131 a 15 – 1131 b 12.

  51. Due process in employment decisions means that employers should go through a fair procedure prior to any such decision and in the event of dismissal provide a justification. Concerning the right to due process, see Boatright (2014: 181–185).

  52. Whistle-blowing is defined as “the voluntary release of nonpublic information, as a moral protest, by a member or former member of an organization outside of normal channels of communication to an appropriate audience about illegal/or immoral conduct in the organization that is opposed in some significant way to the public interest” (Boatright: 82).

  53. Cf. NE E1, 1130 b 4 – 5.

  54. Cf. cases of bribery in the international context, the use of child labour, or the various forms of discrimination at workplace that show a sharp contrast between corporate conduct in host country as opposed to that of the home country.

  55. A7, 1108 a 20.

  56. Cf. Dierksmeier and Pirson (2009: 428) who speak of business enterprises being “democratic, inclusive, open, transparent, accountable, effective, efficient, cooperative and holistic”.

  57. Similarly, Weaver (2006) examines other factors, such organizational, extra-organizational and macro-cultural ones, which can foster or inhibit moral agency.

  58. Rego et al (2011).

  59. Ibid.: In this empirical study, the authors propose a five-factor model: 1/. Organizational optimism with a sense of a high purpose; 2/. Organizational forgiveness; 3/. Organizational trust; 3/. Organizational compassion; and 5/. Organizational integrity meaning that honesty, trustworthiness, and honour pervade the organization.

References

  • Alzola, M. 2015. Virtuous Persons and Virtuous Actions in Business Ethics and Organizational Research. Business Ethics Quarterly 25 (3): 287–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 1941. De Motu Animalium. ed. by R. McKeon. New York. The Loeb Classical Library.

  • Aristotle. 1947. The Nicomachean Ethics, 2nd ed., translated by H. Rackham, The Loeb Classical Library, London.

  • Aristotle. 1952. Eudemian Ethics. ed. by H. Rackham. Mass: Cambridge. The Loeb Classical Library.

  • Aristotle. 1957. Metaphysics. ed. by W. Jaeger. Oxford. The Loeb Classical Library.

  • Aspasius. 1889. Σχόλια εις τα Ηθικά του Αριστοτέλους (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, vol. XIX.1, p.56.18–23). Edited by G. Heybut, 1889. Published by Reimer.

  • Beabout, G.R. 2012. Management as a Domain-Relative Practice that Requires and Develops Practical Wisdom. Business Ethics Quarterly 22 (2 (April)): 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernacer, J., and J.I. Murillo. 2014. The Aristotelian Conception of Habit and its contribution to human neuroscience. Frontiers of Human Neuroscience 8: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boatright, J.R. 2014. Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 7th ed. New Jersey: Pearson New International Edition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobonich, C., and P. Destree. 2007. Akrasia in Greek philosophy. From Socrates to Plotinus. Brill.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bragues, G. 2006. Seek the Good Life, Not Money: The Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 67: 341–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bragues, G. 2013. Aristotelian Business Ethics: Core Concepts and Theoretical Foundations. In Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, ed. C. Luetge, 3–21. Dordrecht, New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brickhouse, T.C. 2003. Does Aristotle Have a Consistent Account of Vice? The Review of Metaphysics 57 (1): 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broadie, S. 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, L., and C. He. 2014. Corporate Environmental Responsibility and Equity Prices. Journal of Business Ethics 125: 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J.L., and A. Goritz. 2014. Culture Corrupts! A Qualitative Study of Organizational Culture in Corrupt Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 120 (3): 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, A., N. Philips, and S. Ansari. 2020. Corporate Corruption: A Review and an Agenda for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals 14 (2): 935–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A. 2002. Moral understanding, motivation and identity. Human Development 45: 130–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costello, G.J. 2019. The Philosophy of innovation in management education: a study utilizing Aristotle’s concept of phronesis. Philosophy of Management 18: 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, D., M. La Case, and M.P. Levine. 1999. Should we strive for Integrity? Journal of Value Inquiry 33 (4): 519–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon, P. 2015. Thinking About Political Corruption. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dierksmeier, C., and M. Pirson. 2009. Oikonomia versus Chrematistike: Learning from Aristotle about the future orientation of business management. Journal of Business Ethics 88: 424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eabrasu, M. 2018. Moral Disagreements in Business. An exploratory introduction. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. 2004. Phronetic planning research: Theoretical and Methodological reflections. Planning Theory and Practice 5 (3): 283–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., and R.E. Freeman. 2017. Focusing on Ethics and Broadening our Intellectual Base. Journal of Business Ethics 140: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadot, P. 2002. What is Ancient Philosophy? Translated by M. Chase. Cambridge MA.: Harvard University Press.

  • Hardie, W.F.R. 1980. Aristotle’s Ethical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E.M. 2006. Can we Teach Character? An Aristotelian Answer. Academy of Management Learning and Education 5: 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E.M. 2008. Socratic Questions and Aristotelian Answers: A Virtue-based Approach to Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 78: 313–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinaman, R. 1988. Eudaimonia and self-sufficiency in the NE. Phronesis 33: 31–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C.M., M.C. Oakes, and M. Smith. 2009. What Plato Knew About Enron. Journal of Business Ethics 86: 463–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, D. 2002. Aristotle on pleasure and the worst form of Akrasia. Ethical Theory Moral Practice 5: 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, P. 1997. Political Corruption: Problems and Perspectives. Political Studies 45: 417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, T. 1992. Who discovered the Will? Philos Respect 6: 454–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, T. 1999. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, Α. 1979. Aristotle’s Theory of the Will. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, Α. 1992. Aristotle on the perfect life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koutras, D. 1987. The Practical Philosophy of Aristotle (Vol. Α’ Ethics), Athens: The National and Kapodistrian University of Athens.

  • Mele, A.R. 1985. Aristotle on Akrasia, Eudaimonia, and the Psychology of Action. History of Philosophy Quarterly 2 (4): 375–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. 1978. Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, J. 2005. Creating the Good Life: Applying Aristotle’s Wisdom to find Meaning and Happiness. New York: Rodale Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C.D. 2013. Aristotle and business: An inescapable tension. In The Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, 23–43. Springer.

  • Peltonen, T. 2021. Practical and Theoretical Wisdom in Management Scholarship: Re-assessing the Use and Appropriations of Aristotle’s Philosophy. Philosophy of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-021-00179-9.

  • Rego, A., N. Ribeiro, M.P. Cuncha, and J.C. Jesuino. 2011. How Happiness mediates the organizational virtuousness and affective commitment relationship. Journal of Business Research 64 (5): 524–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roca, E. 2008. Introducing Practical Wisdom in Business Schools. Journal of Business Ethics 2008 (82): 607–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherkoske, G. 2012. Could Integrity be an epistemic virtue? International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20: 185–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S, Oppegaard, K, Zollo, M, and Q. Huy. 2005. Socially Responsible Behaviour: Developing Virtue in Organizations. Organizational Studies (Special issue): 1–55.

  • Shotter, J., and H. Tsoukas. 2014. Performing phronesis: On the way to engaged judgment. Management Learning 45 (4): 377–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sison, A.J.G. 2011. Aristotelian Corporate Governance. In The book, Corporate Governance and Business Ethics, ed. Alexander Brink, 179–201. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Sisson, A.J.G., and I. Ferrero. (2015). How different is neo-Aristotelian virtue from positive organizational virtuousness. Business Ethics: A European Review: 1–21.

  • Solomon, R. 1992. Corporate Roles, Personal Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach to Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 2: 328–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoyles, B.J. 2007. Aristotle, Akrasia, and the Place of Desire in Moral Reasoning. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2): 195–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trnavcevic, A., and R. Biloslavo. 2017. To the Future with Aristoteles: Phronetic Bricolage? Philosophy of Management 16: 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., and S. Cummings. 1997. Marginalization and Recovery: The Emergence of Aristotelian Themes in Organization Studies. Organization Studies 18: 655–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandekerckhove, W. 2019. Practical Wisdom, Respect and Metaphysics: A Broad Spectrum for Philosophy of Management. Philosophy of Management 18: 211–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, B., and C.U. Stephens. 1994. A Synthesis of Normative Philosophy and Empirical Social Science. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (2): 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. 2010. The Utility of Contemplation in Aristotle’s Protrepticus. Ancient Philosophy 30: 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, G.R. 2006. Virtue in Organization: Moral Identity as a Foundation for Moral Agency. Organization Studies 27 (3): 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. 1994. The Normative/Descriptive Distinction in Methodologies in Business Ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 4 (2): 175–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetstone, T.G. 2001. How Virtue Fits Within Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 33: 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whetstone, T.G. 2003. The Language of Managerial Excellence: Virtues as Understood and applied. Journal of Business Ethics 44: 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, S. 1990. Is Aristotelian Happiness a Good Life or the Best Life? Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 8: 103–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, B. 1981. Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973–1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zyglidopoulos, S., P. Hirsch, P.M. De Holan, and N. Philips. 2017. Expanding Research on Corporate Corruption, Management, and Organizations. Journal of Management Inquiry 26 (3): 247–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Philosophy and the Ancient World, Deree – The American College of Greece, Athens, Greece

    Ioanna Patsioti-Tsacpounidis

Authors
  1. Ioanna Patsioti-Tsacpounidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioanna Patsioti-Tsacpounidis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patsioti-Tsacpounidis, I. Aristotle’s akrasia and Corporate Corruption: Redefining Integrity in Business. Philosophy of Management 22, 421–447 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00239-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00239-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation