Something new is happening at Harvard Business School. As graduation nears for the first class to complete their Master of Business Administration (MBA) since the onset of the global financial crisis, students are circulating an oath that commits them to pursue their work “in an ethical manner,” “to strive to create sustainable economic, social and environmental prosperity worldwide” and to manage their enterprises “in good faith, guarding against decisions and behavior that advance my own narrow ambitions but harm the enterprise and the societies it serves.”
The wording of the new MBA oath draws on one adopted in 2006 by the Thunderbird School of Global Management based in Arizona. Nevertheless, the fact that it has been taken up by the world’s most famous business school is significant.
As of this writing, about 20 percent of the Harvard graduating class have taken the oath. That will, of course, prompt cynics to ask: “What about the other 80 percent?”
But those who have taken the oath are part of a larger turn toward ethics that has followed the recent flood of revelations of dishonesty and greed in the financial sector. Interest in business ethics courses has surged, and student activities at leading business schools are more focused than ever before on making business serve long-term social values.
Business ethics has always had problems that are distinct from those of other professions, such as medicine, law, engineering, dentistry or nursing. A member of my family recently had an eye problem and was referred by her general practitioner to an eye surgeon. The surgeon examined the eye, said that it didn’t need surgery and sent her back to the general practitioner.
That is no more than one would expect from a doctor who is true to the ethics of the profession, my medical friends tell me. By contrast, it’s hard to imagine going to a car dealer and being advised that you don’t really need a new car.
For physicians, the idea of swearing an oath to act ethically goes back to Hippocrates. Every profession will have its rogues, of course, no matter what oaths are sworn, but many health care professionals have a real commitment to serving the best interests of their clients.
Do business managers have a commitment to anything more than the success of their company and to making money? It would be hard to say that they do. Indeed, many business leaders deny that there is any conflict between self-interest and the interests of all. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” they believe, ensures that the pursuit of our own interests in the free market will further the interests of all.
In that tradition, the economist Milton Friedman wrote, in his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, “There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”
For the true believers in this creed, the suggestion that the manager of a business should strive for anything except maximizing value for shareholders is heresy.
But while the global financial crisis did reveal fraud on a massive scale, the underlying cause of the crisis was not fraud but the failure of the market to knit together the self-interest of those who sold and resold subprime mortgages with the interests of the investors in financial institutions that bought them. The fact that an even larger catastrophe would have resulted had governments not been willing to draw on taxpayer funds to bail out the banks was an additional blow to those who told us to trust the unregulated market.
The MBA oath is an attempt to replace the Friedmanite view of the social responsibility of business with something quite different: a management profession that commits itself to promoting the long-term, sustainable welfare of all.
The sense of a professional ethic is conveyed by clauses in the oath that require managers to “develop both myself and other managers under my supervision so that the profession continues to grow and contribute to the well-being of society.”
Another clause stresses accountability to one’s peers, a hallmark of professional self-regulation. As for the ultimate objectives of the managerial profession, they are, as we have seen, nothing less than “to create sustainable economic, social and environmental prosperity worldwide.”
Can such a code really take hold in the competitive world of business? Perhaps the best hope for its success can be glimpsed in a comment made to a New York Times reporter by Max Anderson, one of the pledge’s student organizers.
“There is the feeling that we want our lives to mean something more and to run organizations for the greater good,” he said.
If enough businesspeople would conceive their interests in those terms, we might see the emergence of an ethically based profession of business managers.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
Minister of National Defense Wellington Koo (顧立雄) has said that the armed forces must reach a high level of combat readiness by 2027. That date was not simply picked out of a hat. It has been bandied around since 2021, and was mentioned most recently by US Senator John Cornyn during a question to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio at a US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Tuesday. It first surfaced during a hearing in the US in 2021, when then-US Navy admiral Philip Davidson, who was head of the US Indo-Pacific Command, said: “The threat [of military