Virtuous Individuals, Organizations and Political Economy: A New Age Theological Alternative to Capitalism

ABSTRACT. With the dramatic collapse of bureau-cratic dictatorial socialism, Business Ethicists need anantithesis to capitalism to enrich our reformistwritings. Reliance on self-regulation and requestingthat business executives behave in a socially respon-sible manner are necessary, but not sufficient, condi-tions for creating a “good society.” The purpose ofthis article is to introduce readers to the works of twonew age theologians – Neale Donald Walsch andReverend Sun Myung Moon – who offer an alter-native vision and paradigm for understanding businessand society relationships. They provide uniqueinsights about economics, organizational structuresand policies, and individual attitudes and behaviorsnecessary for creating an ethical society. Pertinenteconomic and organizational concepts emanatingfrom their writings include mission statements andcodes of ethics; meaningful and joyful work;autonomy and self-management; workplace diversity;parentism and participatory management; stakeholdergovernance boards; democratic social capitalism withupper and lower income limits; and the principle ofvisibility. Work should support family units andindividual growth and development, not supersedeor destroy them.

KEY WORDS: theology, theory building, the goodsociety, virtue

I observe that the world has yet to come upwith a system of government which provides atotal solution [regarding good and evil] –although the government in the United Stateshas come the closest so far.

The difficulty is that goodness and fairnessare moral issues, not political ones.

Government is the human attempt tomandate goodness and ensure fairness. Yet thereis only one place where goodness is born, andthat is in the human heart. There is only oneplace where fairness can be conceptualized, andthat is in the human mind. There is only oneplace where love can be experienced truly, andthat is in the human soul. Because the humansoul is love.

You cannot legislate morality. You cannotpass a law saying “love each other.”

. . .What is needed is a growth in con-sciousness, not a growth of government.

(“God,” as quoted in Walsch, 1997,pp. 166–167)

A religious antithesis to capitalism

Recently, several scholars have called for thedevelopment of a religious voice in the businessethics literature (Fort, 1997; Rossouw, 1994).Religious principles and metaphors can inspirecreative ways of addressing ethical issues ( Jackson,1999; Magill, 1992). The

Journal of Business Ethicsand Business Ethics Quarterly have responded bypublishing special issues [BEQ, 1997, 7(2); JBE,1993, 12(12)] and several articles (Pava, 1998b,c;van Wensveen Siker, Donahue and Green, 1991)exploring business ethics topics from a varietyof religious perspectives. In addition, during the

Virtuous Individuals, Organizations and Political Economy: A New Age Theological Alternative to Capitalism

* Denis Collins

Journal of Business Ethics 26: 319–340, 2000.© 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Denis Collins is an Associate Professor of Management atthe University of Bridgeport in Connecticut. His booksinclude Gainsharing and Power (1998), Sustainingthe Natural Environment (1996), and EthicalDilemmas in Business (1994). He has publishednumerous articles in the areas of social philosophy, participatory management, and business ethics. He serveson the editorial board of Teaching Business Ethics.

past few years there has been a remarkableincrease in the number of conference sessionsaddressing religious topics at the annual meetingsof the Society for Business Ethics, Academy ofManagement, and International Association forBusiness & Society. These theoretical path-breakers in a field dominated by philosophers andBusiness School social scientists have gainedsubstantive support from empirical studiesshowing correlations between a person’s reli-giosity and their ability to recognize and appro-priately respond to ethical dilemmas at theworkplace (Burns, Fawcett and Lanasa, 1994;Clark and Dawson, 1996; Kennedy and Lawton,1996, 1998).

A religious framework for critiquing, com-plementing, or developing an alternative visionto capitalism can help fill the theoretical void leftby the failed communist systems in the SovietUnion and Eastern Europe. Currently, there areno major political or economic ideologies servingas a foil to capitalist development other thanlibertarianism. Capitalism, as practiced in theUnited States, represents a communitarian formof social arrangements where managers are atliberty to purse their self-, group-, or nationalinterests while government establishes goals andmonitors for harms and deviancies (Collins,1997). In its pure form, government regulationis established when business activities eithergenerate harms or fail to obtain an essential“public good.” In its corrupted form, govern-ment regulation is implemented as a favor to aparticular business or political interest. The com-munitarian struggle between the trade-offs ofindividual liberty and government interventionis prominent in Etzioni’s (1993, 1996) attempt tocreate a consensus between mainstream liberalsand conservatives in the United States.

The communitarian network of relationshipsis distinct from authoritarian and libertarianmodels (Collins, 1997). The authoritarian modelworships community at the expense of individ-ualism. Political and economic activities are cen-trally planned by a dictatorial entity and citizensand managers must obey these commands inorder to create a secure and stable society(Mendel, 1979). On the other hand, the liber-tarian model worships individualism at the

expense of community. Government’s role islimited to the judiciary and the military(Newman, 1984; Rothbard, 1978) and managersare at liberty to discriminate against employees asthey see fit while pursuing their own creativeendeavors (Block, 1992).

For most of the 1900s, the U.S.’s mixedeconomy was consistently attacked from both thepolitical left (communism) and political right(libertarianism). From a dialectical perspective,the communist antithesis to the mixed economythesis collapsed in 1989, leaving libertarianismas the primary antithesis (Kerlin, 1998). As aresult, corporations have amassed even greaterpolitical power while the social ills Marxist criticshighlighted remain (Korten, 1995). Tragically,one in every five American children is still borninto poverty and the wage gap between the richand poor continues to widen (Barlett and Steele,1996; Schwarz and Volgy, 1992).

How have Business Ethicists responded to thisideological void? A quick survey of BusinessEthics textbooks and the field’s two majorjournals – Journal of Business Ethics and BusinessEthics Quarterly – suggests that Business Ethicistsrecommend only minor tinkering with the mixedeconomy. Generally, Business Ethics scholarsencourage managers to behave in a sociallyresponsible manner by sincerely (1) developing acode of ethics, (2) performing stakeholderanalysis, (3) conducting social audits, (4) applyingethical theories, and (5) becoming people of highintegrity. Appropriately, socially responsible firmssuch as Ben & Jerry’s and The Body Shop areheld up as standards for other companies toemulate (Reder, 1995; Sillanpaa, 1998). Thestatus quo appears to be self-regulation under theinfluence of a variety of rewards and punishmentsas outlined in the 1991 U.S. SentencingGuidelines (Rafalko, 1994; Ruhnka andBoerstler, 1998).

Although the solutions recommended byBusiness Ethicists sound worthy, they do notseem practical in the rough and tumble businessworld where competitors attack your company’smarket share on a daily basis. Despite our bestefforts, many managers and organizations do notmodel themselves after The Body Shop. In thename of organizational survival, these managers

320 Denis Collins

find it necessary to exploit other human beings,the natural environment, and the political system.

In a recent critique of the corporate socialresponsibility literature, Jones (1996) accusedBusiness Ethicists of providing Band-Aid solu-tions to some of the deep social problemscapitalism generates. The ethic of selfishness andgreed that underlies capitalist activities createssocieties where “acquisitive individualism [is]manifested as hyperconsumerism, nationalism,racism, sexism, a lack of any particular sense ofhistorical context, and a disinterest in politics”( Jones, 1996, p. 22). Our penchant for encour-aging managers to engage in socially responsiblebehaviors such as philanthropy “misses the forestfor the trees” because it addresses “symptomsrather than causes.” Importantly, the unethicalactivities that dominate the mass media andbusiness ethics literature are not unique to cap-italism (Collins, 1996) and were quite commonin Greco-Roman times (Small, 1993).Unfortunately, many societal problems charac-teristic of the mixed economy are likely toflourish under the libertarian antithesis.

How can we escape from this quandary giventhat reliance upon either oppressive governmentcontrol or voluntary behavioral changes havefailed to generate a highly ethical businessculture? One potential solution is to revisit thereligious alternative. Questioning the purpose ofbusiness activity and exploring how to create asociety of highly ethical people who serve agreater good is the domain of philosophy andreligion. Currently, the religious perspectivesneaks into secular Business Ethics discussionsthrough the highly filtered voice of ImmanuelKant. In addition to the mainstream Eastern andWestern religions which appeared in the specialissues of Journal of Business Ethics and BusinessEthics Quarterly, an important untapped religiousliterature is that of new religious movementsand new age theorists, who bring with them amissionary fervor to construct highly ethicalsocieties.

This article explores the visionary work of twonew age religious theorists – Neale DonaldWalsch and Reverend Sun Myung Moon – whoencourage people to pro-actively create Heavenon Earth (a “good society”) in a practical, non-

mythological manner. Walsch and Moon offerunique insights into what is wrong with thecurrent relationship between business, individualsand society, and unique cures to these problems.As suggested by the opening quote from NealeDonald Walsch’s Conversations With God, relianceupon government to solve society’s problems willcontinually disappoint us. The answers mustcome from within, not without.

Of the many possible new age theologians, Ihave chosen Walsch and Moon for specificreasons. Walsch’s writings have struck a popularsentiment. Book 1 of the Conversations with Godtrilogy has been on the New York Times non-fiction best-seller list for several years. AlthoughMoon’s writings have not struck a popular chord,they share some foundational assumptions withWalsch and are more systematically advanced,having been critiqued by scholars outside (Bryantand Richardson, 1978) and within (Guerra,1988; Shimmyo and Carlson, 1997; Wilson,1987) the Unification Church. In addition,Moon has founded and sponsored a host ofreligious and political organizations, academicconferences, and newspapers aimed at propa-gating his message (Wilson, 1987). Apparently,many people are reading Walsch’s books andparticipating in Moon’s scholarly conferences andorganizations. This article introduces BusinessEthicists to these already on-going discussions.

I will construct Walsch and Moon’s alternativevision of a human being and a good society tohighlight issues and solutions Business Ethicistscould explore. Extensive quotations will be usedto help familiarize readers with this literature.The approach taken in this article is similar torecent scholarly efforts to enrich the contem-porary discussion of business ethics by exploringthe writings of Puritan moralists (Frey, 1998), St.Vincent de Paul (Bowes, 1998), and Kant andWhitehead (Borowski, 1998), among manyothers.

Walsch and Moon

During the Spring of 1992, Neale DonaldWalsch became a writer/channeler for an energyspirit called “God.” Beginning 1995, these

Virtuous Individuals, Organizations and Political Economy 321

dialogues have appeared as a series titledConversations with God. Book 1 explores personaltopics, such as life challenges and opportunities.Book 2, published in 1997, explores more globaltopics, such as social systems, sex, education,politics, and economics. The third book, pub-lished in 1998, explores other universal truths,such as life after death.

“Unificationism,” the teachings of Koreanevangelist Sun Myung Moon, consists of“revealed truths” he received in prayer and studybeginning at the age of sixteen (Breen, 1997).Moon was born in 1920 to a Confucian peasantfarming family which converted to Christianitywhen he was eleven. Moon’s (1996) Expositionof the Divine Principle outlines his core teachings.True Family Values is a practical guidebook co-authored by Rev. Joong Hyun Pak and AndrewWilson (1996), disciples of Reverend Moon.

The term “God” generates many differentimages and prejudices. According to Walsch andMoon, God is not an old man condemning ourevery sin. Instead, God is an energy field con-sisting of unconditional love that surrounds alllife, including the smallest cell and atom. Thisenergy field has emotion, intellect and will, alldirected toward world peace, and speaks with usthrough our conscience. In this sense, Godexemplifies a Jungian archetype that I will referto as both “Universal Conscience” and “TrueLove” throughout the rest of this article in orderto avoid alienating some readers. Both phrasesdescribe key attributes of the God written aboutby Walsch and Moon.

The remainder of this article is divided intothree parts. Part I provides a host of philosoph-ical and theological assumptions about the natureof reality and human beings based onUnificationism and Conversations with God.Although Walsch and Moon place significantresponsibility on the decisions and behaviors ofevery individual, they also recommend particularorganizational and economic policies that would bringus closer to achieving an ethical society.Therefore, Part II explores virtuous organiza-tional policies and procedures and Part IIIprovides key features of a virtuous politicaleconomy.

Part I: Foundational assumptions

Dual characteristics of the created universe

According to Unificationism, all creation consistsof dual characteristics which have reciprocalrelationships. Walsch (1995) refers to these dualcharacteristics as the “great polarities.” Examplesof dual characteristics include: (1) cause andeffect; (2) internal nature and external form; (3)metaphysics and physics; (4) mind and body; (5)subject and object; (6) thesis and antithesis, and(7) masculinity and femininity. For instance,every cause has an effect, every mind has a body,and vice-versa. Other examples of dual charac-teristics include inside and outside; up and down;high and low; right and left; east and west; fearand love; and so on.

Dual characteristics, a concept also central toBuddhism, are defined relative to each other. Theconcept of “low” is meaningless by itself; it mustbe experienced relative to that which it is not –the concept of “high.” Similarly, love cannot beunderstood unless relative to fear or hatred, andgood relative to evil. For instance, “fear is theenergy which contracts, closes down, draws in,runs, hides, hoards, harms [whereas] love is theenergy which expands, opens up, sends out, stays,reveals, shares, heals” (Walsch, 1995, p. 19).

How should and do dual characteristics relatewith each other? According to Unificationism,harmonious reciprocal relationships should be thenorm. This can be achieved through obedienceto our “original minds.” Unificationism differ-entiates between “original minds” and “fallenminds.” We are born with both types. At its basiccore, our original mind seeks harmony with theUniversal Conscience by respecting bothextremes of paired dual characteristics. On theother hand, our fallen mind seeks separation anddestruction. Violent relationships between dualcharacteristics signify something has gone wrongwith the creative process. The laws of cause andeffect, and internal nature and external form,suggest that violent relationships breeds additionalviolence, whereas harmonic relationships breedsharmony. Harmony can only be achieved whenboth dual characteristics are centered on acommon good or goal, such as Universal

322 Denis Collins

Conscience or True Love. Unfortunately, weoften obey our “fallen mind” and seek conflictbetween dual characteristics by resenting oppo-sites.

A fundamental dual characteristic is internalnature and external form. According toUnificationism, every entity has an internalnature (mind) and external form (body) whichhave a cause and effect relationship. What ourmind thinks influences what our body does, andwhat our body does influences what our mindthinks. Many times human beings become slavesto unhealthy addictions by allowing their fallenminds, rather than original minds, to guide theirbodily actions.

The four position foundation

The world overflows with creations. Peoplecreate themselves on a daily basis based on theirrelationships with other people and organizations.According to Unificationism, creation comesabout through a three-step process – origin,division (a subject partner and object partner),and union – that forms a “Four PositionFoundation.” As shown in Figure 1, the “FourPosition Foundation” parallels the Marxistdialectic. The Unification concept of “division”refers to Marx’s thesis (subject partner) and

antithesis (object partner), and “union” refers tothe synthesis. Only when subject and objectrelate with each other based on True Love canindividual and worldwide peace be obtained.

It takes time for the Four Position Foundationto develop. All creations pass through three stagesof development formation, growth, and comple-tion in order to reach their end state. Forinstance, human beings are not born adults. Theyare initially formed as a fetus and then growthrough childhood and adolescence on their wayto adulthood.

Each person’s conscience is a dynamic, notstatic, electromagnetic field that serves as aninternal connection to the Universal Conscience.The conscience constantly perceives, creates, andevolves, representing the highest thoughts aboutourselves and others, including our ability to loveand be loved. Universal Conscience is the voicewithin each person’s conscience, no matter howunconscionably unethical a person may behave.According to Moon (1996, p. 23), “however evila person may be, the force of conscience, whichimpels him toward a virtuous life, is always activewithin his inner self.”

The Four Position Foundation is the founda-tional building block of reality. All subject andobject partners create new entities through theirgive-and-take relationship. For instance, the give-and-take relationship between a proton and


Figure 1. Marx’s dialectic and the four position foundation.

electron generates hydrogen. Thus, the FourPosition Foundation serves as a paradigm formuch of the discussion that follows.

Heaven on earth: individual perfection to world peace

Similar to Aristotle, Unificationism maintainsthat the purpose of creation is joy and happi-ness. Human beings create who they are everymoment of the day through interactions withenvironmental factors. Our surrounding reality issignificantly influenced by our feelings, thoughtsand mental actions, and vice versa. We attractlike-minded people and often repulse our oppo-sites. Our friends tend to be those who sharecommon concerns and life circumstances. In thissense, “thoughts are like magnets, drawing effectsto you” (Walsch, 1995, p. 188). Individual hap-piness occurs when our intentions, centered onTrue Love, are fulfilled.

Whereas many traditional religions focus onindividual salvation, Unificationism focuses onfamily restoration. Children are our greatestcreation. As shown in Figure 2, families consistof multiple Four Position Foundations. The FourPosition Foundation connecting one’s children toUniversal Conscience and True Love containstwo smaller Four Position Foundations, one foreach parent. Newborns learn about moralityfrom nurturing parents who are continuallylearning how to embody and express True Love.Thus, families are “schools of love” where “ahusband achieves perfection through his wife; awife through her husband; parents through theirchildren” (Pak and Wilson, 1996, p. 114).

Parents, as “co-creators,” are responsible fordistributing love to their children so that they candistribute love to their children when theybecome adults, and so on into future generations.Parental love, like True Love, is sacrificial andunconditional, not oppressive. Unificationism

324 Denis Collins

Figure 2. From individual perfection to ideal families.

teaches that “every child has a basic human rightto loving parents” (Pak and Wilson, 1996, p. 75).Children also learn about True Love from theirsiblings, grandparents and friends. The morechildren learn and experience True Love, themore they can educate others about True Love.

As shown in Figure 3, this pattern repeats itselfuntil world peace is achieved. Families centeredon True Love generate community peace, which,in turn, generates national and world peace. Theexpansion of love from the individual to theworld parallels the stages of moral developmentadvanced by Kohlberg (1984). Importantly, indi-vidual and community peace depend a great dealon relationships centered on True Love withinthe family context. Without loving parents, achild’s evolution to an ethical ideal is significantlyhampered.

What went wrong?

Given all of the above, why is the world displayedin daily newspapers such a travesty? Aristotlemaintains that in early civilizations men andwomen united for two primary reasons: sexualattraction and efficiency purposes. Then children

were born. Unificationism proposes that theseprimal parents, referred to as Adam and Eve, hadnot fully embodied True Love before procreating.Psychologically, they hadn’t appropriately com-pleted the growth stage of moral developmentprior to becoming adults. Instead of beingcentered on True Love, they were self-centeredimmature adults engaged in sexual activity, assuggested by the hiding of their sexual organs inGenesis.

According to Unificationism, the primalfamily was highly dysfunctional. The dynamicsoutlined in Figure 2 never developed. Althoughneither spouse could provide True Love, theyboth demanded it of the other. Without beingable to give and receive True Love to and fromeach other, they were unable to give True Loveto their children. Fraternal love could not beappropriately developed in such a family envi-ronment. This is exemplified by the Biblical storyof Cain killing his younger brother Abel. As aresult, dysfunctional families multiplied from onegeneration to the next. In modern times, unre-solved parental, spouse and sibling rivalriesdominate the rough and tumble worlds ofbusiness, politics, law, religion and other promi-nent societal institutions.


Figure 3. From family to world peace.

Unethical activities in the business world

According to Unificationism, employers andemployees are unable to channel True Love toeach other and the surrounding communitybecause they didn’t experience True Love withintheir families. People bring the values reinforcedat home with them to social institutions, such asschools and the workplace. In the business sector,these distorted values are expressed in anemployer’s harsh pursuit of profit and power andan employee’s sabotaging of the work process.Lacking connection with True Love, neitheremployers nor employees feel personally respon-sible or accountable for their work surroundings.They both claim to be victims of their circum-stances. Pak and Wilson (1996, pp. 97–98) writethat:

The failure to perfect parental love expands to afailure in leadership in society. The kings andpresidents of nations, mayors of cities, bosses ofcorporations and principals of schools fulfill roleslike that of parents, though on a larger level. Theseleaders are like the parents to the citizens of thenations or the subordinates in their organizations.Being spiritually immature as parents in theirfamilies, these leaders are unable to fulfill theirpublic responsibilities with true parental love.Instead, they find more expedient ways to exercisecontrol. They may use the power of persuasion,making inspirational speeches and promising whatthey cannot keep. They may rely on legal orbureaucratic institutions to insulate themselves fromthe human dimension of their duty. They maysmooth their way with money or intrigue, or theymay use terror and the barrel of a gun. As a result,we are dissatisfied with our political and businessleaders and resent their power and privilege. Theworld longs for leaders who govern society in truelove. They must first be parents who know howto govern their families in true love.

In order to advance through a Machiavelliandominated hierarchy, some managers may pur-posely delay exemplifying aspects of True Loveat the workplace until after obtaining a covetedhigh position. But, as Aristotle argues, habits arehard to break. According to Unificationism, “aleader cannot suddenly become noble andvirtuous if he lacks the foundation of good

character and a mature spirit” (Pak and Wilson,1996, p. 100). It is extremely difficult for peopleto shed a well-developed, and successful,Machiavellian consciousness. In a Kantianmanner, corrupt means generate corrupt ends.

Part II: Some virtuous organizationalpolicies and procedures

How are we to escape from this predicament? Inaddition to individuals harmonizing with withTrue Love in the family context, we must createsocial systems and institutions that embodypolicies and procedures supportive of our evolu-tionary quest for individual and communalperfection. At the organizational level of analysis,six virtuous policies and procedures emanatefrom the writings of Walsch and Moon: (1)mission statements and ethics codes; (2) mean-ingful and joyful work; (3) autonomy and self-management; (4) workplace diversity; (5)parentism and participatory management; and(6) stakeholder governance boards.

These interrelated policies integrate employersand employees with True Love, each other, andthe broader society. For instance, meaningful andjoyful work that generates appropriate levels ofrevenue should be at the heart of an organiza-tion’s mission statement and code of conduct.Such work is characterized by a diverse groupof autonomous, self-managed employees unifiedthrough participatory management mechanismsduring the daily operation of the firm and at thelevel of board governance.

In this section I provide Walsch and Moon’sjustification for each of the six policies. Inaddition, scholarly works published since 1990 inJournal of Business Ethics and Business EthicsQuarterly that address these topics are integratedwith the discussion to point out complementaryideas and areas in need of further clarification andknowledge.

Mission statements and ethics codes

Mission statements and codes of conduct definean organization’s “collective” consciousness or

326 Denis Collins

intention. As shown in Figure 4, each organiza-tion can be conceptualized according to the FourPosition Foundation. The mission statement is inthe “origin” position, management the subjectpartner, nonmanagement employees the objectpartner, and workplace peace the synthesizedoutcome.

Mission statements should appeal to theemployees’ original minds by exemplifying thehighest standards of relationships between orga-nizational personnel and each stakeholder. Everyemployee and work unit should be challengedto embody the highest idea of themselves and theorganization. Conflict between the purpose ofcreation and the purpose of an organization willgenerate disharmony and inefficiencies.Therefore, an organization’s creative communalmission (external form) should be closely linkedto employees’ creative individual missions(internal nature), and vice versa. Both manage-ment and nonmanagement employees shouldserve each other based on the organization’smission statement and master their immediateenvironments in a cooperative effort.

The concept of “mastering” something isoften misunderstood. Masters are the bestservants, not the best dictators. According toWalsch (1995, pp. 114–115):

A true Master is not the one with the moststudents, but one who creates the most Masters.A true leader is not the one with the most fol-lowers, but one who creates the most leaders. Atrue king is not the one with the most subjects,but one who leads the most to royalty. A trueteacher is not the one with the most knowledge,but one who causes the most others to haveknowledge. And a true God is not One with themost servants, but One who serves the most,thereby making Gods of all others.

Ethics should be a key element of an organi-zation’s guiding vision (Dierkes and Zimmerman,1994). Evans (1991) maintains that an organiza-tion’s mission should be “total ethics,” similar tothe goal of “zero defects.” Most firms alreadyhave an ethics code (Center for Business Ethics,1992; Murphy, 1995) that is intended to serveas its “collective conscience” (Raiborn andPayne, 1990). But the presence of formal ethicalguidelines doesn’t mean that employees knowthey exist (Forker, 1990) or willingly follow them(Allmon and Grant, 1990). Ethics codes must beinternalized to generate the desired results (Beetsand Killough, 1990). Nonetheless, most, but notall, research reveal positive correlations betweenthe presence of ethics codes and ethical behavior(Cleek and Leonard, 1998; Ford and Richardson,1994; Stevens, 1994).

What is true for a local organization is alsotrue for industries and multinational enterprises.There is an increasing desire for internationalethics codes (Smeltzer and Jennings, 1998) and,as demonstrated by some international agree-ments, a consensus already exists regarding themoral duties multinational enterprises shouldembody (Frederick, 1991; Getz, 1990). However,much more work needs to be done documentinghow ethics codes serve as the foundation fororganizational mission statements, and howmission statements and ethics codes can be inter-nalized among the employees. The fit betweenthe ethical goals of individuals and the organiza-tion should be easier to obtain for those educated


Figure 4. Four position foundation work model.

within the family context outlined by Moon andWalsh.

Meaningful and joyful work

In addition to the obvious need for income, whyshould people work? As suggested in the sectionon individual perfection to world peace, the pur-pose of a family is to serve the broader society.According to Unificationism, work is a family’s“contribution to the public good” (Pak andWilson, 1996, p. 67). All individuals and families“have a civic duty to contribute to the welfareof the community” (Pak and Wilson, 1996, p.54). Families are training grounds for life, not theend-goal. If “an entity seeks only its self-purpose,it loses its connection with the whole thatsustains it” (Pak and Wilson, 1996, p. 56).

A second motivation for working is toexperience the purpose of creation: joy andhappiness. According to Walsch (1997, p. 217),“joy at the work place has nothing to do withfunction, and everything to do with purpose.”All people should have the opportunity to pursuea career which brings them joy. Meaningful andjoyful work provides people with an equalopportunity to express their creativeness,“acquire knowledge, develop skills, and use hisor her natural talents” (Walsch, 1997, p. 209).The type of work people engage in should be apassionate extension of their creative, well-integrated personality, rather than “just a job.”

Work should fulfill a person’s highest versionof self. Otherwise, work tasks are contrary to theflow of creation, causing employee resentmentand inefficient and ineffective organizations.Meaningless work causes self-denial, which leadsto self- and organizational-destruction. In adiscussion of American capitalists exploitingThird World labor, Walsch writes: (1997, p. 221):

And when they are called on it, these capitalistssay, “Hey, they’ve got it better than before, don’tthey? We’ve improved their lot! The people aretaking the jobs, aren’t they? Why, we’ve broughtthem opportunity! And we’re taking all the risk!”

Yet how much risk is there in paying people 75cents an hour to manufacture sneakers which aregoing to sell for $125 a pair? . . .

Such a system of rank obscenity could exist onlyin a world motivated by greed, where profitmargin, not human dignity, is the first considera-tion.

Those who say that “relative to the standardsin their society, those peasants are doing wonder-fully!” are hypocrites of the first order. They wouldthrow a drowning man a rope, but refuse to pullhim to shore. Then they would brag that a rope isbetter than a rock.

Importantly, employment is for adults, notchildren. The vicious cycle of child labor indeveloping nations is a major tragedy. Childlaborers become ill and unemployable frominadequate working conditions, and then mustmaximize procreation in hopes that a few of theiroffspring obtain jobs to pay for their care.Instead, children should be learning True Lovefrom their parents and teachers, and exploringtheir creative abundances.

Although worker empowerment was a man-agerial buzzword throughout the 1990s (Gandzand Bird, 1996; Miller, 1998), very little has beenpublished the past decade in Journal of BusinessEthics and Business Ethics Quarterly on meaningfulwork. This is surprising given the insight by Gini(1998) that the purpose of work is to helpproduce people, not just goods. Two commonapproaches to the topic have been throughCatholic social teaching (Naughton and Laczniak,1993; Zigarelli, 1993) and the Marxist conceptof “alienation” (Kanungo, 1992; Sweet, 1993).

Bowie (1998) provides a very helpful list of sixcriteria defining meaningful work from a Kantianperspective that could engage other scholars.Meaningful work (1) is freely entered into, (2)allows autonomy and independence, (3) enablesa worker to develop rational capacities, (4)provides a wage sufficient for physical welfare, (5)supports the moral development of employees,and (6) does not interfere with a worker’s con-ception of how to obtain happiness.

Walsh and Moon assume that meaningful workwill generate greater joy and ethical behavior.Kennedy and Lawton (1996) found that peoplewith higher levels of alienation were more willingto engage in unethical behavior. Otherresearchers have found that job satisfaction ishigher when top management stresses ethical

328 Denis Collins

behavior (Vitell and Davis, 1990) and declineswhen people are informed that successfulmanagers had behaved unethically (Viswesvaranand Deshpande, 1996).

Autonomy and self-management

An important attribute of meaningful work is theability to create oneself through productive laborsthat benefit others. Each employee is a uniqueentity. To some extent, this would entail findingappropriate matches between organizationalneeds and employee creativity, a web of contractsbased on autonomy and self-management whichFreeman and Gilbert (1988) refer to as a“personal project enterprise strategy.” Accordingto Walsch (1995, p. 86), our destination is“acceptance of Who and What You Are rightnow and demonstration of that.” Organizationsemploying people who do know who they areshould mold job tasks that fit their abilities.Organizations employing people who do not yetknow who they are should provide opportunitiesfor them to discover who they may be. Eventhese employees need autonomy and flexibilityto make mistakes because “you cannot grow andbecome great when you are constantly being toldwhat to do” (Walsch, 1997, p. 135).

Currently, autonomy and self-managementexists primarily among those who have masteredresources and skills that command the highestsalaries. Most places of employment are charac-terized by mistrust between management andnonmanagement employees (Borowski, 1998).There are many ways for alienated and disgrun-tled employees to sabotage an organization’soperations (Giacalone and Knouse, 1990). Inaddition, research reveals that people areambiguous as to whether it is right or wrong totake home office supplies, use the company carto make personal trips, and make personal copieson the company’s copying machine ( Jones,1990). As a result, managers speak of controllingemployees rather than encouraging accountability(Maguire, 1999) and develop electronic surveil-lance mechanisms that carefully monitor work-place performance (Hawk, 1994; Ottensmeyerand Heroux, 1991) and invade employee privacy

rights (Manning, 1997; Schwoerer, May andRosen, 1995). Corrective action would requireprocess and outcome-based incentive that wouldreplace extensive lists of rules and regulationswhich deny worker autonomy and creativity.

Workplace diversity

Unificationism provides a powerful argument infavor of workplace diversity. Gender, racial, andethnic bigotry exemplify a disconnection withTrue Love. We all share a common ancestrydating back to the first two human beings andmust learn how to treat everyone as if he or sheis a member of our extended family.

People naturally feel more comfortable withthose of the same gender, race, religion, andethnicity. However, being with people exactlylike ourselves fails to spur us on to deeper levelsof growth and development. Homogeneity gen-erates stagnation, exclusivity and intolerancetoward those who exhibit differences. On theother hand, heterogeneity generates develop-ment, inclusivity and toleration. Diversityincreases our awareness of the present momentand stimulates our minds and hearts. Increasedsocial interaction with people possessing differentexternal attributes and internal natures expandsthe types of people we can love and care for.Thus workplace diversity plays a fundamental rolein perfecting our relationship with True Love andprovides a daily opportunity for individualgrowth and development.

Unificationism teaches that there are twelvegeneral types of personalities, one per zodiacsign, each representing a unique aspect of TrueLove. When we avoid a particular type of per-sonality, we reject one-twelfth of human exis-tence. Derogatory prejudices based on thesedifferences prevent us from uniting with TrueLove. Overcoming prejudices requires modifyingwhat Walsch (1995, p. 164) calls a “sponsoringthought.” This can be achieved by reversing thecreative process from thought-word-experienceto experience-word-thought. Prejudicial spon-soring thoughts about different types of peoplecan be changed by sharing common experienceswith them. Working together on projects and


common goals provide endless opportunities torelate with people different than ourselves. Theend result is a new set of preconceptions moreembedded in True Love.

Our current inability to treat people differentthan ourselves appropriately is exemplified byworkplace issues such as sexual harassment(Dandekar, 1990; Devine and Markiewicz, 1990),gender stereotyping (Gregory, 1990) and racism,(Karambayya, 1997). On the more positive sideof the ledger, gender, race, ethnic, cultural, andreligious diversity at the workplace provides amuch broader perspective for recognizing andexploring managerial and product issues. Forinstance, gender diversity at the managerial ranksprovides the organization with a host of leader-ship styles (Gregory, 1990; Korabik, 1990).Researchers have also detected gender differencesregarding moral reasoning modes (Butz andLewis, 1996) and ethical sensitivities (Borkowskiand Ugras, 1992, 1998; Ford and Richardson,1994; Robin and Babin, 1997; Ruegger andKing, 1992; Smith and Oakley, 1997).Interestingly, researchers typically find that eitherwomen are more sensitive to ethical issues orthere is no difference; men are never found to bemore ethically sensitive than women (Borkowskiand Ugras, 1998; Ford and Richardson, 1994;Robin and Babin, 1997). Ethical sensitivities alsodiffer according to age (Borkowski and Ugras,1998; Mitchell, Lewis and Reinsch, 1992).Although diversifying the workforce can increasestress by introducing previously unaddressedissues (Andre, 1995), steps are available toappropriately manage these potential pitfalls(Eyring and Stead, 1998).

Participatory management and parentism

A prominent virtue of workplace diversity isthe many different perspectives available formanaging operations and addressing problems.Participatory management mechanisms are essen-tial for cultivating these diverse viewpoints. Asshown in Figure 4, organizations have an infinitenumber of subject-object relationships, withbosses as subject partners and subordinates asobject partners. Workplace peace is obtained

when these subject and object relationships arecentered on True Love. Similar to a family, thepurpose of the whole organization must guar-antee the interests of individual members, andvice-versa. Otherwise, individuals will notsupport the whole. Unificationism teaches that(Pak and Wilson, 1996, p. 242):

Business activities in the culture of heart shouldfollow the universal principle that places thewelfare of the whole first. A company is a type offamily. Within the constraints of a competitivemarketplace, it should look after the welfare of allits employees. As many Japanese and Americancorporations have discovered, cooperative andcollaborative relations between workers and man-agement can actually improve productivity and givea company a competitive advantage over thoseplagued by adversarial labor-management relations.Relations between management and employeesshould be characterized by loyalty and mutual trust.A company president or CEO should not createresentment among the workers by taking anexorbitant salary. At the same time, workers shouldnot greedily insist on excessive wages that woulddamage the company’s competitive position in themarket.

CEOs who embody the organization’s missionstatement should possess the heart of a parentcentered on True Love when governing at work.Unificationism calls this system of management“Parentism.” Organizational leaders should serveas parents, exhibiting both masculine andfeminine dual characteristics, and guide squab-bling siblings toward reconciliation, unity andsolidarity. Unity is not obtainable throughoppressive commands that deny individualfreedom. Instead, employees should be offeredthe opportunity to develop and apply criticalthinking skills. According to Unificationism (Pakand Wilson, 1996, pp. 138–139):

In a unified world, we recognize our interdepen-dence with all people, indeed with the entire webof nature. Our biological existence depends on thefood, air and water provided by myriad organismsas well as by the labors of farmers, truckers andmanufacturers who bring these nutrients to ourhome. A janitor and a CEO are equal in value asregards their indispensable roles in maintaining theoperations of the company. Should their salaries

330 Denis Collins

differ a hundred-fold? The excessive value placedon money and power distorts our present-daysociety. In the future, people will be honored fortheir character and depth of heart more than fortheir position or wealth.

The Unificationist concept of “Parentism”compliments much of the literature on trans-formational and servant leadership (Ciulla, 1995;Graham, 1995). Avenues of sincere dialogue mustbe developed between management and non-management employees (Nielson, 1990, 1991)that encourage employees to share their differentethical perspectives and practical concerns (Kraftand Singhapakdi, 1991; McIntrye and Capen,1993; Miller, Stead and Pedeira, 1991; Peterson,Beltramini and Kozmetsky, 1991; White andDooley, 1993). Allowing employees to partici-pate in key decisions supports attributes ofother policies previously discussed, such asmeaningful work (Naughton, 1995) andemployee autonomy (Brenkert, 1992).

Stakeholder governance boards

Participatory management mechanisms thatembrace diverse viewpoints and concerns shouldappear throughout the organization, includingthe Board of Directors. Currently, many organi-zations are governed by board members whoserve as agents for the owners (investors) or theupper-level managers who hire them. Diversityattributes at the board level are often limited totechnical skills. This process of governance iscontrary to the principles of Parentism andparticipatory management. According to Walsch(1997, p. 142), “the fastest way to see allhumankind as your family is to stop separatingyourself.”

Boards of Directors should be more inclusive,seeking the perspectives of all stakeholdersaffected by organizational decisions. Each stake-holder, including labor representatives, environ-mentalists, and other public interest grouprepresentatives, should be provided with anopportunity to voice their concerns regardingthe formation and implementation of companypolicy. Stakeholder involvement at the board levelwould significantly reduce expenditures associ-

ated with stakeholder conflicts after policies areformulated and implemented.

Importantly, there will always be disputes onstakeholder governance boards and other partic-ipatory management mechanisms within theorganization. This is a virtue, not a vice. Allhuman beings have different desires and prefer-ences. Disharmony regarding particular organi-zational policies signals an opportunity forindividual and communal growth and develop-ment. Initiative to correct an ill fit falls on theshoulders of both parties. According to Pak andWilson (1996, p. 59), “loving one’s enemy is nota utopian ideal, but the most practical way toresolve conflicts.” To love one’s enemy takescourage, compassion and self-discipline, allfactors that enable self growth and development.

On some occasions, compromise betweendisputing parties is essential, as both partiesshould recognize each other’s needs and exhibitthe virtue of humility. However, compromisingto avoid conflict is not the best approach, par-ticularly if it entails rationalizing lower standards.According to Walsch (1997, p. 16), “failure toexpress (i.e. push out) negative feelings does notmake them go away [and instead] harms thebody and burdens the soul.” The “losing of theSelf in a relationship is what causes most ofthe bitterness in such couplings” (Walsch, 1995,p. 125). Since we exist relative to each other, ourmany differences should be honored, rather thaneradicated.

Shareholders represent only one type of firminvestor (Etzioni, 1998). The voices of othertypes of investors, such as employees and com-munity representatives, should be heard at theboard level. The conceptual link betweenpluralistic control and social performance issuesis self-evident (Molz, 1995). For instance, thepresence of women and minorities increases theboard’s likelihood of addressing discriminatoryhiring and promotion policies (Burke, 1997).Researchers have also found that gender, raceand percent of outsiders on the board are linkedwith philanthropic contributions (Ibrahim andAngelidis, 1995; Judge, 1994; Siciliano, 1996;Thompson and Hood, 1993; Wang and Coffey,1992). Ecologists should not be overlooked forboard membership. Among sixty organizational


effectiveness criteria, concern for ecologicalissues came in last and second to last in surveysof business students and managers (Kraft,1991a,b; Kraft and Singhapakdi, 1991).

Part III: Characteristics of a virtuouspolitical economy

In addition to virtuous organizational policiesand procedures, individual and communal per-fection require support from a virtuous politicaleconomy. Two characteristics of a virtuouspolitical economy emanate from the writingsof Walsch and Moon – Democratic SocialCapitalism (a free-market based economy withupper and lower income limits) and the principleof visibility.

Democratic social capitalism

Moon and Walsch’s preference for democracyover other forms of political systems is self-evident given the theological assumptions devel-oped earlier in this article. Equal political rightsand duties naturally flow from the evolution ofTrue Love. All human beings contain a divineseed that reflects the dual characteristics of TrueLove. Freedom of expression and creativity helpsto define the uniqueness of each person, and thefreedom to follow one’s conscience is essentialfor individual and communal growth towardembodying True Love. Thus, all adults deserveequal respect, dignity, and autonomy fromgoverning bodies. According to Unificationism(Pak and Wilson, 1996, pp. 129–130):

Wherever tyranny oppresses, the internal freedomof conscience will sooner or later evoke the cry forfreedom in society. Freedom is an inalienable right.It includes both the internal freedoms of faith,thought and conscience, and the external freedomsof speech and the press, freedom to assemble,organize and take economic or political action,freedom to travel and emigrate, and freedom fromarbitrary arrest and prosecution without just cause.

Democracy allows for a wide range of debateswhere individuals bring their unique experiencesin life to the discussion. For instance, CatholicBishops can assess and critique the U.S. economic

system, and business executives can offertheir disagreements for public consumption(McGowan, 1990; Sethi and Steidlmeier, 1993).Importantly, Moon ultimately proposes thewithering away of nations and institutionalreligions, in conjunction with the formation ofa theocracy centered on his family (Mickler,1997), but these particular millennialist senti-ments are a few steps beyond the idealism alreadybeing sketched in this article.

Economics, in addition to religion andpolitics, is a major social system of activities thatgoverns the lives of individuals, families, andcommunities. According to Unificationism, theprimary features of economics – production, dis-tribution, and consumption – should have anorganic relationship wherein there is “sufficientproduction of necessary and useful goods, fairand efficient distribution of these goods, andreasonable consumption which is in harmonywith the purpose of the whole” (Moon, 1996,p. 342). The process of creating wealth, like allcreations, should embody True Love. Otherwise,economic injustice reigns.

The Four Position Foundation for thepolitical economy is diagramed in Figure 5.Economics represents the object partner (externalform) and religion, meaning theories ofgoodness, the subject partner (internal nature).Both systems should be centered on True Love.Politics is the interplay between religious prin-ciples and economic activities. According toUnificationism, “religion and economy areintegrated with our life through politics”(Moon, 1996: 334). For instance, democraticvalues flowed from religion (the ProtestantReformation) through politics (Parliamentaryelections) to economics (capitalism). Similar toPreston and Post’s (1975) interpenetrating systemsmodel, events within one system can dramaticallyimpact events within another system.

As noted earlier, all creation evolves throughthree stages of development – formation, growthand completion. The same holds true for eco-nomics. Unificationism accepts the economicgenealogy developed by Adam Smith andamended by Karl Marx (Collins, 1988). Humansociety began with primitive collectives which,due to new political arrangements, evolved into

332 Denis Collins

slavery, feudalism, mercantilism, and capitalism.Capitalism is an evolutionary improvement overmercantilism, which is an improvement overfeudalism and slavery. Under slavery, only a fewpolitical elites had economic freedom. Each suc-ceeding stage extends freedom to more people.

According to Walsch, (1997, p. 204) the nextstage of political economy should be a synthesisbetween capitalism and socialism, a system whichguarantees: (1) the meeting of basic needs/dig-nities [socialism] and (2) the opportunity toadvance socially and financially [capitalism].Socialism ensures freedom to live a sustainablelife and capitalism ensures freedom of upwardmobility.

Walsch (1997, p. 209) proposes a free market-based economy embraced by upper and lowerincome limits which I will refer to as DemocraticSocial Capitalism. This system of political andeconomic arrangements is quite similar towhat Williams (1993) labels “CommunitarianDemocratic Capitalism” in the Catholic socialteaching tradition. Freedom is an essential valuethat must be at the heart of larger social systems,but it’s not an absolute value.

Echoing Adam Smith, Walsch distinguishesself-interest from selfishness. The former is avirtue, the latter is not. Walsch (1997, p. 98)writes that “putting yourself first does not meanbeing what you term “selfish” – it means beingself aware.” All human beings have unique self-

based desires which are “the beginning of allcreation” (Walsch, 1997, p. 65). In addition,people experience joy – the purpose of creation– when they accumulate and spend money. Themore money one makes, the more one can verypractically share joy with others. In this sense,capitalism reinforces many virtues, particularlyliberty and creativity (Maitland, 1997, 1998;Novak, 1993). High morals exhibited by businessleaders inspires reductions in government regu-lations (Rossouw, 1998). As exemplified by the1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, there is aninitial preference for economic freedom and self-regulation, with government stepping in whentrust has been betrayed (Druckrey, 1998; Ferrell,LeClair and Ferrell, 1998; Rafalko, 1994;Ruhnka and Boerstler, 1998).

When, and to what extent, government inter-vention is justified remains a highly contentiousissue (Brock, 1996; Jackson, 1993; Jennings,Smeltzer and Zener, 1993; McMurty, 1997).Surveys consistently show that people believebusinesses must be held accountable for how theyimpact local communities (Prasad, Marlow andHattwick, 1998). The United States version ofdemocratic capitalism tends to overemphasizeindividualism and underemphasize community.As a result, the planet is being severely damagedthrough over-production, destructive competi-tion, unfair distribution, and excessive accumu-lation and consumption. Destruction to the


Figure 5. Four position foundation for interpenetrating social systems.

natural environment and a need to develop sus-tainable cultures strongly suggest the need tomodify the current form of democratic capitalism(DesJardins, 1998; Buchholz, 1998). The assumedrelationship between profit seeking in the freemarket system and increases in living standardsand the quality of life can be quite tenuous( Jacobsen, 1991).

Everyone deserves appropriate living condi-tions, the driving force of democratic socialismbecause we are all born with equal value.Capitalism’s greatest shortcoming is its blindnessto the yin and yang of economics, namely, estab-lishing upper and lower limits on income and theconsumption of resources. Too much consump-tion is an overabundance of selfishness. Accordingto Unificationism (Moon, 1996, p. 342):

Because human beings are created to live in anideal society, they will inevitably pursue a social-istic ideal as they strive for freedom and democ-racy and further search into their original nature.. . . As this natural desire springs forth from within,politics in [a] democracy, which is shaped by thewill of the people, will also move in that direction.Eventually, a socialistic society embodying [theideal of True Love] will be established.

Walsch and Moon’s version of democraticsocialism differs dramatically from the authori-tarian bureaucratic socialism recently abandonedin Russia and its many satellites. They both seekto resurrect the Biblical principle “from eachaccording to ability and to each according toneed” (Acts 4, pp. 32–35) which describes theeconomic behaviors of early Christian commu-nities. Moon (1996, p. 342) writes that “theirinclination toward socialism originated from thenatural impulse of the original mind as it pursuesthe ideal of creation.” According to Walsch(1997, p. 162):

The idea behind the statement “From eachaccording to his ability, to each according to hisneed” is not evil, it is beautiful. It is simply anotherway of saying you are your brother’s keeper. It isthe implementation of this beautiful idea that canbecome ugly.

Human beings should not be put into theposition of worrying about having enoughmoney for food, clothing, shelter, education and

health care for themselves and their children.Walsch (1997, p. 170) argues that “the challengeis not to make everyone equal, but to giveeveryone at least the assurance of basic survival[economic security and materialistic needs] withdignity, so that each may then have the chanceto choose what more they want from there.”

How should the safety net be funded? Walsch(1997, pp. 187, 211) proposes a “flat tax” systemthat would “deduct 10 percent of all earningseach year from the incomes of those voluntarilyrequesting such a deduction” and redistributed togovernment programs and services “as voted onby the people.” Additional income would begenerated from a democratically agreed uponlimit on how much money a person could keepfor personal use, a topic not even touched uponin the Journal of Business Ethics or Business EthicsQuarterly the past decade. Walsch arbitrarilychooses $25 million a year as sufficient to fulfillthe needs of any one person or family (Walsch,1997, p. 218). While reflecting on adopting thispolicy world-wide, Walsch (1997, p. 216) writes:

[Anything above that limit] would be contributedto the world charitable trust in the name of thecontributor, so all the world would know itsbenefactor. Benefactors would have the option ofdirect control over the disbursement of 60 percentof their contribution, providing them the satisfac-tion of putting most of their money exactly wherethey want it. The other 40 percent would beallocated to programs legislated by the worldfederation and administered by it.

The Achilles heel of socialism has long beenthe problems of disincentives and free-riders. Ifadequate living conditions are guaranteed wouldpeople decide not to work? For this reason,Walsch limits government assistance to basicneeds. Government should encourage peopleto pursue their highest, not lowest, self.Government subsidies are self defeating if theycreate dependence rather than independence.According to Walsch (1997, p. 162):

The goal is to help the weak grow strong, not tolet the weak become weaker.

This is the problem with many governmentassistance programs, for they often do the latter,rather than the former. Government programs can

334 Denis Collins

be self-perpetuating. Their objective can be everybit as much to justify their existence as to helpthose they are meant to assist.

If there were a limit to all government assistance,people would be helped when they genuinely needhelp but could not become addicted to that help,substituting it for their own self-reliance.

Importantly, inequalities will still abound.Similar to Rawls (1971), both Walsch and Moonlimit equality to opportunity, not results oroutcomes. Some people will be richer or poorerthan others, but nobody will starve. Accordingto Walsch (1997, p. 210) “the incentive won’tbe taken out of life . . . merely the desperation.”Envy at what others have relative to oneself willmotivate people to strive for more, not less. Inaddition, as discussed earlier, it is assumed that:(1) people are being taught that the purpose of afamily is to serve society and (2) work is designedto fulfill a person’s highest version of self.

Nonetheless, some people may choose to befree-riders. The appropriate virtue one shoulddistribute toward free-riders is compassion, notenvy. According to Walsch (1997, pp. 207–208):

People have a right to basic survival. Even if theydo nothing. Even if they contribute nothing.Survival with dignity is one of the basic rights oflife. I have given you enough resources to be ableto guarantee that to everyone. All you have to dois share...

It is not for you to judge the journey ofanother’s soul. It is for you to decide who YOUare, not who another has been or has failed tobe . . .

. . . enlightened ones would look upon the non-contributors with great compassion, not resent-ment . . . because the contributors would realizethat noncontributors are missing the greatestopportunity and the grandest glory: the opportu-nity to create and the glory of experiencing thehighest idea of Who They Really Are. And thecontributors would know that this was punishmentenough for their laziness, if, indeed, punishmentwere required – which it is not.

Principle of visibility

As discussed earlier, many stakeholder relation-ships in the business and economic arena are

dominated by lies, half-truths, and bluffs.Managers and nonmanagement employees arenot always truthful with each other, particularlyregarding wage disputes. In addition, they some-times selfishly withhold the truth from owners,customers, environmentalists, public interestgroups, government officials, and media.

Adopting a “principle of visibility” wouldprofoundly change the way business is conducted.According to Walsch (1997, p. 190), “we aretalking here about simple, direct, straightforward,open, honest, complete communication.” Pricelabels and wages are two, among many, veryprovocative opportunities for applying a principleof visibility. Walsch predicts that prices wouldsignificantly decline, and competition increase,if a label was put on every product stating its costsas well as price. Such a policy would alsoencourage accountants to more honestly inter-nalize the social costs of externalities whendetermining prices. Many wage adjustmentswould occur within a company if all amounts ofemployee income (both salaries and nonmone-tary perks) were made visible.

Walsch also applies the principle of visibilityto family income and expenditures. According toWalsch (1997, pp. 186–187):

Develop an international monetary system that iswide open, totally visible, immediately traceable,completely accountable. Establish a WorldwideCompensation System by which people would begiven Credit for services rendered and productsproduced, and Debits for services used andproducts consumed.

Everything would be on the system of Creditsand Debits. Returns on investments, inheritances,winnings of wagers, salaries and wages, tips andgratuities, everything. And nothing could be pur-chased without Credits. There would be no othernegotiable currency. And everyone’s records wouldbe open to everyone else.

It has been said, show me a man’s bank account,and I’ll show you the man. This system comesclose to that scenario. People would, or at leastcould, know a great deal more about you than theynow know. But not only would you know moreabout each other; you would know more abouteverything. . . .

[Currently, the world would never agree to avisible economic system] because such a system


would make it impossible for anyone to do anythingthey didn’t want someone else to know about.

Concluding comments

The evaporation of Marxist scholars followingthe collapse of communism in 1989 has left atremendous void in the Business Ethics literature.The great economic debate between capitalismand communism, and their implications formanaging organizations, has ended. Nonetheless,daily newspapers remind us of capitalist short-comings and continued unethical activity in thebusiness arena.

Business Ethicists need to create a clear visionof a “good society.” Despite infinite critiques,neoclassical theory’s vision of a “good society”continues to significantly influence public policy.As a result, some Business Ethicists find them-selves reminding public policy makers, businessexecutives, and each other about the shatteredlives of casualties inside and outside organizations.Ross McDonald (1993, p. 661) went so far as towrite an open letter to the editor of Journal ofBusiness Ethics protesting the “proliferation ofpersonally useful but broadly useless and increas-ingly inane analyses of only peripherally impor-tant issues,” placing the blame on academicculture and reward systems.

This article enriches our understanding of a“good society” and the role of business withinit by highlighting insights from two new agetheologians. The political trends of the dayworship individualism, self-regulation, and smallgovernment. Given these basic assumptions,people will have to take individual initiative tocare for the broader community. But, as Moonargues, we have all been raised in dysfunctionalfamilies and reproduce our family problems,particularly a lack of love for others, in our dailywork and economic activities. Thus, the creationof virtuous organizations and political economicsystems are dependent on the existence ofvirtuous individuals, who are dependent onvirtuous parents and families. All of this is inter-related. We learn about True Love from ourparents. At the present moment, there is nodiscussion of the role of virtuous families in

creating ethical organizations and economicsystems. This is exactly the direction Walsch andMoon direct our attention.

The type of work individuals choose to doimpacts their personal development, family, andbroader community, as do other business activi-ties in the local community. Managers play a vitalrole in the creation of joyful workplaces andvirtuous organizations. Work should supportfamily units and individual growth and develop-ment, not supersede or destroy them.

Pava (1998a) provides a very cautious note onreligiously grounding business ethics, particularlyin societies governed by political liberalism. Hisconclusion are unduly narrow and pessimistic.Religious principles played a very importantfoundation role in the initial development ofcapitalism (Weber, 1993). Adam Smith (1976)assumed people’s sensitivities to the dictates oftheir conscience originated with their concep-tions of God. The caution rests in beingdogmatic about imposing a particular set ofreligious practices.

Note

* An earlier version of this article was presented atthe annual Society of Business Ethics Conference inBoston, Massachusetts, August 1997.

References

Allmon, D. E. and J. Grant: 1990: ‘Real Estate SalesAgents and the Code of Ethics: A Voice StressAnalysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 9(10), 807–812.

Andre, R.: 1995, ‘Diversity Stress as Morality Stress’,Journal of Business Ethics 14(6), 489–496.

Barlett, D. L. and J. B. Steele: 1996, America: WhoStole the Dream? (Andrews & McMeel, Kansas City,Missouri).

Beets, S. D. and L. N. Killough: 1990, ‘TheEffectiveness of a Complaint-Based EthicsEnforcement System: Evidence from theAccounting Profession’, Journal of Business Ethics9(2), 115–126.

Block, W.: 1992: ‘Discrimination: An Interdiscipli-nary Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(4),241–254.

Borkowski, S. C. and Y. J. Ugras: 1998, ‘Business

336 Denis Collins

Students and Ethics: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17(11), 1117–1127.

Borkowski, S. C. and Y .J. Ugras: 1992: ‘The EthicalAttitudes of Students as a Function of Age, Sexand Experience’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(12),961–979.

Borowski, P. J.: 1998, ‘Manager-EmployeeRelationships: Guided by Kant’s CategoricalImperative or by Dilbert’s Business Principle’,Journal of Business Ethics 17(15) 1623–1632.

Bowes, J. C.: 1998, ‘St.Vincent de Paul and BusinessEthics’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(15),1663–1667.

Bowie, N. E.: 1998, ‘A Kantian Theory ofMeaningful Work’, Journal of Business Ethics17(9–10), 1083–1092

Breen, M.: 1997, Sun Myung Moon: The Early Years,1920–1953 (Refuge Books, England).

Brenkert, G. G.: 1992, ‘Freedom, Participation andCorporations: The Issue of Corporate (Economic)Democracy’, Business Ethics Quarterly 2(3),251–269.

Brock, G.: 1996, ‘Meeting Needs and BusinessObligations: An Argument for the LibertarianSkeptic’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(6), 695–702.

Bryant, M. D. and H. W. Richardson (Eds.): 1978,A Time for Consideration: A Scholarly Appraisal ofthe Unification Church (The Edwin Mellen Press,New York).

Buchholz, R. A.: 1998, ‘The Ethics of ConsumptionActivities: A Future Paradigm?’, Journal of BusinessEthics 17(8), 871–882.

Burke, R. J.: 1997: ‘Women on Corporate Boards ofDirectors: A Needed Resource’, Journal of BusinessEthics 16(9), 909–915.

Burns, D. J., J. K. Fawcett and J. Lanasa: 1994:‘Business Students: Ethical Perceptions of RetailSituations: A Microcultural Comparison’, Journalof Business Ethics 13(9), 667–679.

Butz, C. E. and P. V. Lewis: 1996, ‘Correlation ofGender-Related Values of Independence andRelationship and Leadership Orientation’, Journalof Business Ethics 15(11), 1141–1149.

Center for Business Ethics: 1992, ‘Instilling EthicalValues in Large Corporations’, Journal of BusinessEthics 11(11), 863–867.

Ciulla, J: 1995, ‘Leadership Ethics: Mapping theTerritory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 5(1), 5–28.

Clark, J. W. and L. E. Dawson: 1996, ‘PersonalReligiousness and Ethical Judgements: AnEmpirical Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(3),359–372.

Cleek, M. A. and S. L. Leonard: 1998, ‘Can

Corporate Codes of Ethics Influence Behavior?’,Journal of Business Ethics 17(4), 619–630.

Collins, D.: 1997, ‘The Ethical Superiority andInevitability of Participatory Management as anOrganizational System’, Organization Science 8(5),489–507.

Collins, D.: 1996, ‘Capitalism and Sin: Please ExploitMe for Your Benefit’, Business & Society 35(1),42–50.

Collins, D: 1988, ‘Adam Smith’s Social Contract’,Business and Professional Ethics 7(3/4), 119–146.

Dandekar, N.: 1990: ‘Contrasting Consequences:Bringing Charges of Sexual Harassment Comparedwith Other Cases of Whistleblowing’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9(2), 151–158.

DesJardins, J.: 1998, ‘Corporate EnvironmentalResponsibility’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(8),825–838.

Devine, I. and D. Markiewicz: 1990, ‘Cross-SexRelationships at Work and the Impact of GenderStereotypes’, Journal of Business Ethics 9(4/5),333–338.

Dierkes, M. and K. Zimmerman: 1994, ‘TheInstitutional Dimension of Business Ethics: AnAgenda for Reflection, Research and Action’,Journal of Business Ethics 13(7), 533–541.

Druckrey, F.: 1998, ‘How to Make Business EthicsOperational: Responsible Care – An Example ofSuccessful Self-Regulation?’, Journal of BusinessEthics 17(9/10), 1083–1092.

Etzioni, A.: 1998, ‘A Communitarian Note onStakeholder Theory’, Business Ethics Quarterly 8(4),679–691.

Etzioni, A.: 1996, The New Golden Rule: Communityand Morality in a Democratic Society (Basic Book,New York).

Etzioni, A.: 1993, The Spirit of Community (CrownPublishers, New York).

Evans, R.: 1991, ‘Business Ethics and Changes inSociety’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(11), 871–876.

Eyring, A. and B. A. Stead: 1998, ‘Shattering theGlass Ceiling: Some Successful CorporatePractices’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(3), 245–251.

Ferrell, O. C., D. T. LeClair and L. Ferrell: 1998,‘The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organ-izations: A Framework for Ethical Compliance’,Journal of Business Ethics 17(4), 353–363.

Ford, R. C. and W. D. Richardson: 1994, ‘EthicalDecision Making: A Review of the EmpiricalLiterature’, Journal of Business Ethics 13(3), 205–221.

Forker, L. B.: 1990, ‘Purchasing Professionals in StateGovernment: How Ethical Are They?’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9(11), 903–911.


Fort, T. L.: 1997, ‘Religion and Business Ethics: TheLessons from Political Morality’, Journal of BusinessEthics 17(3), 263–273.

Frederick, W. C.: 1991, ‘The Moral Authority ofTransnational Corporate Codes’, Journal of BusinessEthics 10(13), 165–177.

Freeman, R. E. and D. R. Gilbert: 1988, CorporateStrategy and the Search for Ethics (Prentice Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

Frey, D. E.: 1998, ‘Individualist Economic Values andSelf-Interest: The Problem of the Puritan Ethic’,Journal of Business Ethics 17(14), 1573–1580.

Gandz, J. and F. G. Bird: 1996, ‘The Ethics ofEmpowerment’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(4),383–392.

Getz, K. A.: 1990, ‘International Codes of Conduct:An Analysis of Ethical Reasoning’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9(7), 567–577.

Giacalone, R. A. and S. B. Knouse: 1990, ‘JustifyingWrongful Employee Behavior: The Role ofPersonality in Organizational Sabotage’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9(1), 55–61.

Gini, A.: 1998, ‘Work, Identity and Self: How WeAre Formed by the Work We Do’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17(7), 707–714.

Graham, J. W.: 1995: ‘Leadership, MoralDevelopment, and Citizenship Behavior’, BusinessEthics Quarterly 5(1), 43–54.

Gregory, A.: 1990, ‘Are Women Different and Whyare Women Thought to Be Different? Theoreticaland Methodological Perspectives’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 9(4–5), 257–266.

Guerra, A. J. (Ed.): 1988, Unification Theology inComparative Perspectives (Unification TheologicalSeminary, Barrytown, New York).

Ibrahim, N. A. and J. P. Angelidis: 1995, ‘TheCorporate Social Responsiveness Orientation ofBoard Members: Are There Differences BetweenInside and Outside Directors?’, Journal of BusinessEthics 14(5), 405–410.

Jackson, K. T.: 1999, ‘Spirituality as a Foundation forFreedom and Creative Imagination in InternationalBusiness Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 19(1),61–70.

Jackson, K. T.: 1993, ‘Global Distributive Justice andthe Corporate Duty to Aid’, Journal of BusinessEthics 12(7), 547–551.

Jacobsen, R.: 1991, ‘Economic Efficiency and theQuality of Life’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(3),201–209.

Jennings, M. M., R. R. Smeltzer and M. F. Zener:1993, ‘The Ethics of Worker Safety Nets forCorporate Change’, Journal of Business Ethics 12(6),459–468.

Jones, M. T.: 1996, ‘Missing the Forest for the Trees:A Critique of the Social Responsibility Conceptand Discourse’, Business & Society 35(1), 1–41.

Jones, W. A.: 1990, ‘Student Views of Ethical Issues:A Situational Analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics9(3), 201–205.

Judge, W. Q.: 1994, ‘Correlates of OrganizationalEffectiveness: A Multilevel Analysis of aMultidimensional Outcome’, Journal of BusinessEthics 13(1), 1–10.

Kanungo, R. N.: 1992, ‘Alienation and Empower-ment: Some Ethical Imperatives in Business’,Journal of Business Ethics 11(5/6), 413–422.

Karambayya, R.: 1997, ‘In Shouts and Whispers:Paradoxes Facing Women of Colour inOrganizations’, Journal of Business Ethics 16(9),8891–897.

Kennedy, E. J. and L. Lawton: 1998, ‘Religiousnessand Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(2),163–175.

Kennedy, E. J. and L. Lawton: 1996, ‘The Effects ofSocial and Moral Integration on Ethical Standards:A Comparison of American and UkrainianBusiness Students’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(8),901–911.

Kerlin, M. J.: 1998, ‘The End of History, Specters ofMarx and Business Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics17(15), 1717–1725.

Kohlberg, L.: 1984, The Psychology of MoralDevelopment (Harper & Row, San Francisco).

Korabik, K.: 1990, ‘Androgyny and Leadership Style’,Journal of Business Ethics 9(4/5), 283–292.

Korten, D. C.: 1995, When Corporations Rule the World(Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA).

Kraft, K. L.: 1991a, ‘The Relative Importance ofSocial Responsibility in DeterminingOrganizational Effectiveness: Student Responses’,Journal of Business Ethics 10(3), 179–188.

Kraft, K. L.: 1991b, ‘The Relative Importanceof Social Responsibility in DeterminingOrganizational Effectiveness: Managers from TwoService Industries’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(7),485–491.

Kraft, K. L. and A. Singhapakdi: 1991: ‘The Role ofEthics and Social Responsibility in AchievingOrganizational Effectiveness: Students VersusManagers’, Journal of Business Ethics 10(9), 679–686.

Magill, G.: 1992, ‘Theology in Business Ethics:Appealing to Religious Imagination’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 11(2), 129–135.

Maguire, S.: 1999; ‘The Discourse of Control’, Journalof Business Ethics 19(1), 109–114.

Maitland, I.: 1998, ‘Community Lost?’, Business EthicsQuarterly 8(4), 655–670.

338 Denis Collins

Maitland, I.: 1997, ‘Virtuous Markets’, Business EthicsQuarterly 7(1), 17–31.

Manning, R. C.: 1997: ‘Liberal and CommunitarianDefenses of Workplace Privacy’, Journal of BusinessEthics 16(8), 817–823.

McDonald, R. A.: 1993, ‘An Open Letter to NorthAmerican Business Ethicists’, Journal of BusinessEthics 12(8), 661–662.

McGowan, R.: 1990, ‘Justice: The Root of AmericanBusiness Ideology and Ethics’, Journal of BusinessEthics 9(11), 891–901.

McIntyre, R. P. and M. M. Capen: 1993: ‘ACognitive Style Perspective on Ethical Questions’,Journal of Business Ethics 12(8), 629–634.

McMurty, J.: 1997, ‘The Contradiction of FreeMarket Doctrine: Is There a Solution?’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 16(7), 645–662.

Mendel, A. P. (Ed.): 1979, Essential Works of Marxism(Bantom Books, New York).

Mickler, M. L.: 1997, ‘The Ideal Society and ItsRealization in Unification Tradition’, in R. Carterand S. Isenberg (eds.), The Ideal in the World’sReligions: Essays on the Person, Family, Society andEnvironment (Paragon House, St. Paul, Minnesota),pp. 313–330.

Miller, J. J., B. A. Stead and A. Pereira: 1991:‘Dependent Care and the Workplace: An Analysisof Management and Employee Perceptions’, Journalof Business Ethics 10(11), 863–869.

Miller, R. A.: 1998, ‘Lifesizing in an Era ofDownsizing: An Ethical Quandry’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17(15), 1693–1700.

Mitchell, W. J., P. V. Lewis and N. L. Reinsch: 1992:‘Bank Ethics: An Exploratory Study of EthicalBehaviors and Perceptions in Small, Local Banks’,Journal of Business Ethics 11(3), 197–205.

Molz, R.: 1995, ‘The Theory of Pluralism inCorporate Governance: A Conceptual Frameworkand Empirical Test’, Journal of Business Ethics14(10), 789–804.

Moon, S. M.: 1996, Exposition of the Divine Principle(Holy Spirit Association for the Unification ofWorld Christianity, New York, NY).

Murphy, P. E.: 1995: ‘Corporate Ethics Statements:Current Status and Future Prospects’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 14(9), 727–740.

Naughton, M. J.: 1995, ‘Participation in the Organ-ization: An Ethical Analysis from the Papal SocialTradition’, Journal of Business Ethics 14(11), 923–935.

Naughton, M. and G. R. Laczniak: 1993: ‘ATheological Context of Work from the CatholicSocial Encyclical Tradition’, Journal of BusinessEthics 12(12), 981–994.

Newman, S. L.: 1984, Liberalism at Wits’ End (CornellUniversity Press, Ithaca, NY).

Nielsen, R. P.: 1991: ‘I Am We’ Consciousness andDialogue as Organizational Ethics Method’, Journalof Business Ethics 10(9), 649–663.

Nielsen, R. P.: 1990: ‘Dialogic Leadership as EthicsAction (Praxis) Method’, Journal of Business Ethics9(10), 765–783.

Novak, M.: 1993, ‘The Creative Person’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 12(12), 975–979.

Ottensmeyer, E. J. and M. A. Heroux: 1991, ‘Ethics,Public Policy, and Managing AdvancedTechnology: The Case of Electronic Surveillance’,Journal of Business Ethics 10(7), 519–526.

Pak, J. H. and A. Wilson: 1996, True Family Values(Holy Spirit Association for the Unification ofWorld Christianity, New York, NY).

Pava, M. L.: 1998a, ‘Religious Business Ethics andPolitical Liberalism: An Integrative Approach’,Journal of Business Ethics 17(5), 1633–1652.

Pava, M. L.: 1998b, ‘The Substance of Jewish BusinessEthics’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(6), 603–617.

Pava, M. L.: 1998c, ‘Developing a ReligiouslyGrounded Business Ethics: A Jewish Perspective’,Business Ethics Quarterly 8(1), 65–83.

Peterson, R. A., R. F. Beltramini and G. Kozmetsky:1991, ‘Concerns of College Students RegardingBusiness Ethics: A Replication’, Journal of BusinessEthics 10(10), 733–738.

Prasad, J. N., N. Marlow and R. E. Hattwick: 1998,‘Gender-Based Differences in Perception of aJust Society’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(3),219–228.

Preston, L. and J. E. Post: 1975, Private Managementand Public Policy (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ).

Rafalko, R. J.: 1994, ‘Remaking the Corporation:The 1991 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 13(8), 625–636.

Raiborn, C. A. and D. Payne: 1990: ‘CorporateCodes of Conduct: A Collective Conscience andContinuum’, Journal of Business Ethics 9(11),879–889.

Rawls, J.: 1971: A Theory of Justice (HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, MA).

Reder, A.: 1995, Best 75 Business Practices for SociallyResponsible Companies (G.P. Putnam’s Sons, NewYork).

Robin, D. and L. Babin: 1997, ‘Making Sense of theResearch on Gender and Ethics in Business: ACritical Analysis and Extension’, Business EthicsQuarterly 7(4), 61–90.

Rossouw, G.J.: 1998: ‘Establishing Moral Business


Culture in Newly Formed Democracies’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 17(14), 1563–1571.

Rossouw, G. J.: 1994: ‘Business Ethics: Where HaveAll the Christians Gone?’, Journal of Business Ethics13(7), 557–570.

Rothbard, M. N.: 1978, For a New Liberty: TheLibertarian Manifesto (Libertarian ReviewFoundation, New York).

Ruegger, D. and E. W. King: 1992: ‘A Study ofthe Effect of Age and Gender upon StudentBusiness Ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 11(3),179–186.

Ruhnka, J. C. and H. Boerstler: 1998, ‘GovernmentalIncentives for Corporate Self-Regulation’, Journalof Business Ethics 17(3), 309–326.

Schwarz, J. E. and T. J. Volgy: 1992, The ForgottenAmericans (W.W. Norton & Company, New York).

Schwoerer, C. E., D. R. May and B. Rosen: 1995,‘Organizational Characteristics and HRM Policieson Rights: Exploring the Patterns andConnections’, Journal of Business Ethics 14(7),531–549.

Sethi, S. P. and P. Steidlmeier: 1993: ‘Religion’s MoralCompass and a Just Economic Order: Reflectionson Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical CentesimosAnnus’, Journal of Business Ethics 12(12), 901–917.

Shimmyo, T. and D. A. Carlson (Editors): 1997,Explorations in Unificationism (HSA-UWC, NewYork).

Siciliano, J. I.: 1996, ‘The Relationship of BoardMember Diversity to Organizational Performance’,Journal of Business Ethics 15(12), 1313–1320.

Sillanpaa, M.: 1998, ‘The Body Shop Values Report– Towards Integrated Stakeholder Auditing’, Journalof Business Ethics 17(4), 1529–1539.

Small, M. W.: 1993: ‘Ethics in Business andAdministration: An International and HistoricalPerspective’, Journal of Business Ethics 12(4),293–300.

Smeltzer, L. R. and M. M. Jennings: 1998, ‘Why AnInternational Code of Business Ethics Would BeGood for Business’, Journal of Business Ethics 17(1),57–66.

Smith, A.: 1976, A Theory of Moral Sentiments (LibertyClassics, Indianapolis, Indiana).

Smith, P. L. and E. F. Oakley: 1997, ‘Gender-RelatedDifferences in Ethical and Social Values of BusinessStudents: Implications for Management’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 16(1), 37–45.

Stevens, B.: 1994, ‘An Analysis of Corporate EthicalCode Studies: Where Do We Go From Here?’,Journal of Business Ethics 13(1), 63–69.

Sweet, R. T.: 1993, ‘Alienation and Moral

Imperatives: A Reply to Kanungo’, Journal ofBusiness Ethics 12(7), 579–582.

Thompson, J. K. and J. N. Hood: 1993: ‘The Practiceof Corporate Social Performance in Minority-Versus Nonminority-Owned Small Businesses’,Journal of Business Ethics 12(3), 197–206.

Van Wensveen Siker, L., J. A. Donahue and R. M.Green: 1991, ‘Does Your Religion Make aDifference in Your Business Ethics? The Case ofConsolidated Foods’, Journal of Business Ethics10(11), 819–832.

Viswesvaran C. and S. P. Deshpande: 1996, ‘Ethics,Success, and Job Satisfaction: A Test of DissonanceTheory in India’, Journal of Business Ethics 15(10),1065–1069.

Vitell, S. J. and D. L. Davis: 1990: ‘The RelationshipBetween Ethics and Job Satisfaction: An EmpiricalInvestigation’, Journal of Business Ethics 9(6),489–494.

Walsch, N. D.: 1997, Conversations with God: AnUncommon Dialogue, Book 2 (Hampton RoadsPublishing Company, Charlottesville, VA).

Walsch, N. D.: 1995, Conversations with God: AnUncommon Dialogue, Book 1 (G.P. Putnam’s Sons,New York, NY).

Wang, J. and B. S. Coffey, 1992: ‘Board Compositionand Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of BusinessEthics 11(10), 771–778.

Weber, M.: 1993, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit ofCapitalism (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

White, C. S. and R. S. Dooley: 1993: ‘Ethical orPractical: An Empirical Study of Students’ Choicesin Simulated Business Scenarios’, Journal of BusinessEthics 12(8), 643–651.

Williams, O. F.: 1993, ‘Catholic Social Teaching: ACommunitarian Democratic Capitalism for theNew World Order’, Journal of Business Ethics12(12), 919–932.

Wilson, A. (Ed.): 1987, The Future of the World:Scholars View the Thought of Reverend Moon(International Cultural Foundation, New York).

Zigarelli, M. A.: 1993, ‘Catholic Social Teaching andthe Employment Relationship: A Model forManaging Human Resources in Accordance withVatican Doctrine’, Journal of Business Ethics 12(1),75–82.

School of Business,University of Bridgeport,Bridgeport, CT 06601,

U.S.A.E-mail: [email protected]

340 Denis Collins

Documents

Virtuous Individuals, Organizations and Political Economy: A New Age Theological Alternative to Capitalism