Skip to main content
Log in

Recontextualising Aristotelian Perspectives on the Purpose of the Business Corporation

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Business ethicists draw extensively on Aristotle’s work in defining the purpose of the business corporation. Insights from ancient authors can be valuable in illuminating contemporary issues, but we should be wary of enlisting their authority for our views without paying careful attention to what they might have intended by what they said in their own social and economic context. Business ethicists have argued that the business corporation should be a community within which its members can live a good life; that its purpose should not be to maximise profits; and that it should integrate itself into a range of wider communities beyond its own boundaries and serve their interests. Aristotle would have agreed that the business corporation should not seek to make as much profit as possible, although he might have accepted that – in the light of modern developments in economic management - it should make enough profit to fund projects that would be beneficial to society. Aristotle’s view that the polis provided the setting in which people could best live a good life does not justify the claim that the business corporation can or should serve a similar purpose. Aristotle believed that people should strive for enough and not too much in several contexts, not only in acquiring wealth, but also in defining the size and scope of the community of which they should be members. Some expansive, contemporary views on the communities into which the business corporation should integrate itself are alien to Aristotle’s thinking.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The literal translation of the word chreia as “need” that is adopted here, in place of Rackham’s translation of the word as “demand”, follows Finley’s (1974) rejection of Rackham’s translation as an anachronistic introduction of a term from modern economic theory.

References

  • Aristotle 1932. Politics, Trans. Rackham, H., Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

  • Aristotle 1934. Nicomachean Ethics, Trans. Rackham, H., Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

  • Collins, D. 1987. Aristotle and business. Journal of Business Ethics 6 (7): 567–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deal, T., and A. Kennedy. 1988. Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. London: Penguin Books.

    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 (3): 417–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finley, M.I. 1968. Aspects of antiquity. London: Chatto & Windus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finley, M.I. 1974. Aristotle and economic analysis. In Studies in Ancient Society, 26–52. Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

  • Gimbel, S. 2005. Can corporations be morally responsible? Aristotle, stakeholders and the non-Sale of Hershey. Philosophy of Management 5 (3): 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, M. 2008. Aristotle on natural slavery. Phronesis 53 (3): 243–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, K. 1967. Slavery in classical antiquity. In Ciba Foundation Symposium on Caste and Race: Comparative Approaches, ed. A.V.S. de Reuck and J. Knight, 166–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, R.J. 1961. The mines and miners of ancient Athens. Greece & Rome 8 (2): 138–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A.H.M. 1956. Slavery in the ancient world. The Economic History Review, New Series 9 (2): 185–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzynski, M. 2009. Peter Drucker: Modern day Aristotle for the business community. Journal of Management History 15 (4): 357–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meikle, S. 1979. Aristotle and the political economy of the polis. The Journal of Hellenic Studies 99: 57–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michell, H. 1957. The economics of ancient Greece (second edition). Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, R. 1994. Aristotle and the political role of women. History of Political Thought 15 (2): 179–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi, W. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly 25 (1): 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C.D. 2013. Aristotle and business: An inescapable tension. In Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics, ed. C. Luetge. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato 2013. Republic: Books 1–5, Trans. Emlyn-Jones, C. and Preddy, W., Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

  • Roca, E. 2007. Rethinking Aristotelian communities as contemporary corporations. Philosophy of Management 6 (2): 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosivach, V.J. 1999. Enslaving ‘Barbaroi’ and the Athenian ideology of slavery. Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte 48 (2): 129–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R.C. 1992. Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelean approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly 2 (3): 317–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, R.C. 2004. Aristotle, ethics and business Organisations. Organisation Studies 25 (6): 1021–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, D. 1975. Aristotle the Metic. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, New Series 21 (201): 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnberg, N.M. 2000. Normative stakeholder theory and Aristotle: The link between ethics and politics. Journal of Business Ethics 25 (4): 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Shaw.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaw, D. Recontextualising Aristotelian Perspectives on the Purpose of the Business Corporation. Philosophy of Management 21, 289–300 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-020-00161-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-020-00161-x

Keywords

Navigation