Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Ethical relativism

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting? / Lewis, Linda; Unerman, J.
In: Critical Perspectives on Accounting, Vol. 10, No. 4, 08.1999, p. 521-547.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Lewis, L & Unerman, J 1999, 'Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting?', Critical Perspectives on Accounting, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 521-547. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1998.0280

APA

Vancouver

Lewis L, Unerman J. Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting? Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 1999 Aug;10(4):521-547. doi: 10.1006/cpac.1998.0280

Author

Lewis, Linda ; Unerman, J. / Ethical relativism : A reason for differences in corporate social reporting?. In: Critical Perspectives on Accounting. 1999 ; Vol. 10, No. 4. pp. 521-547.

Bibtex

@article{6bf370248cbf4cb38b6e22e8ec495f81,
title = "Ethical relativism: A reason for differences in corporate social reporting?",
abstract = "Much research into corporate social reporting (CSR) studies how organisations might account for their positive and negative impacts on society. Implicit in many such studies is an understanding of what members of society regard as positive (or good) and negative (or bad). A key question in moral philosophy is whether ethical rules which determine what is good and bad are absolute, or vary relative to cultural differences or individual beliefs. If ethics are relative then what is considered good at a particular point in time by one society, individual or stakeholder group might not be regarded as good at other times or by other societies, individuals or stakeholder groups, and CSR that addresses these moral values will similarly vary.@e@qThis paper argues in favour of a reasoned form of relativism. While it does not maintain that ethical relativism is the only possible cause of differences in CSR practices, it contends that relativism could be an important cause of such differences and attempts to make explicit the arguments about what is regarded as good and bad in society as a determining influence on CSR and as a way of raising the moral debate on the subject. {\textcopyright} 1999 Academic Press.",
author = "Linda Lewis and J. Unerman",
year = "1999",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1006/cpac.1998.0280",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "521--547",
journal = "Critical Perspectives on Accounting",
issn = "1045-2354",
publisher = "Academic Press Inc.",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethical relativism

T2 - A reason for differences in corporate social reporting?

AU - Lewis, Linda

AU - Unerman, J.

PY - 1999/8

Y1 - 1999/8

N2 - Much research into corporate social reporting (CSR) studies how organisations might account for their positive and negative impacts on society. Implicit in many such studies is an understanding of what members of society regard as positive (or good) and negative (or bad). A key question in moral philosophy is whether ethical rules which determine what is good and bad are absolute, or vary relative to cultural differences or individual beliefs. If ethics are relative then what is considered good at a particular point in time by one society, individual or stakeholder group might not be regarded as good at other times or by other societies, individuals or stakeholder groups, and CSR that addresses these moral values will similarly vary.@e@qThis paper argues in favour of a reasoned form of relativism. While it does not maintain that ethical relativism is the only possible cause of differences in CSR practices, it contends that relativism could be an important cause of such differences and attempts to make explicit the arguments about what is regarded as good and bad in society as a determining influence on CSR and as a way of raising the moral debate on the subject. © 1999 Academic Press.

AB - Much research into corporate social reporting (CSR) studies how organisations might account for their positive and negative impacts on society. Implicit in many such studies is an understanding of what members of society regard as positive (or good) and negative (or bad). A key question in moral philosophy is whether ethical rules which determine what is good and bad are absolute, or vary relative to cultural differences or individual beliefs. If ethics are relative then what is considered good at a particular point in time by one society, individual or stakeholder group might not be regarded as good at other times or by other societies, individuals or stakeholder groups, and CSR that addresses these moral values will similarly vary.@e@qThis paper argues in favour of a reasoned form of relativism. While it does not maintain that ethical relativism is the only possible cause of differences in CSR practices, it contends that relativism could be an important cause of such differences and attempts to make explicit the arguments about what is regarded as good and bad in society as a determining influence on CSR and as a way of raising the moral debate on the subject. © 1999 Academic Press.

U2 - 10.1006/cpac.1998.0280

DO - 10.1006/cpac.1998.0280

M3 - Journal article

VL - 10

SP - 521

EP - 547

JO - Critical Perspectives on Accounting

JF - Critical Perspectives on Accounting

SN - 1045-2354

IS - 4

ER -