This paper reinterprets Epicurean ethics as a strategic lens for sustainable capitalism, emphasizing its relevance beyond traditional philosophical discourse. By focusing on the concepts of ataraxia (tranquility) and aponia (absence of bodily pain), the article proposes a pragmatic ethical framework for business leaders navigating ecological and social challenges. Drawing on contemporary scholarship and real-world applications, it outlines how moderation, simplicity, and community — core Epicurean values — can inform responsible corporate governance and long-term value creation. Central to this framework is the concept of sobriety (sobrietas) — reinterpreted here as a philosophically grounded governance disposition that distinguishes genuine Epicurean corporate cultures from superficial sustainability rhetoric. Rehabilitating Epicureanism as a philosophy of rational sufficiency rather than indulgence, the article draws particularly on the work of Warren (2004) and Nussbaum (1994) to show how the ethical foundations of this philosophy — moderation, simplicity of life, the importance of friendship, and the pursuit of natural pleasures — can guide businesses toward environmentally and socially responsible conduct. These principles, which resonate with contemporary reflections on frugality and voluntary simplicity (Alexander and Ussher 2012), may provide the basis for a business ethics capable of addressing the challenges of anthropocenic capitalism (Bansal and Song 2017). The article thus demonstrates how these orientations can be translated into concrete strategies for resource management, stakeholder engagement (Freeman 1984), and long-term value creation. The "garden" of Epicurean philosophy thereby emerges as fertile ground for cultivating a sustainable business ethics, in line with recent calls for practical wisdom in managerial governance (Beabout 2012). The Brundtland Commission report (1987) stated, “Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt lifestyles within the planet’s ecological means.” This paper’s central and limited claim is that the Epicurean philosophy will help in transitioning to such lifestyles. Sustainability need not require self-sacrifice if one can learn to be happy with natural and necessary pleasures and do without unnatural and unnecessary pleasures. Rational limits to growth are not the same thing as rational limits to desire, but they support each other.
Research on diversity and organizational performance has generated a large body of empirical work, yet the literature continues to produce mixed and often contradictory findings. This essay argues that the problem is not simply empirical inconsistency, but the structure of the research programme itself. Drawing on classical philosophy of science—particularly Thomas Kuhn’s concept of “normal science,” Imre Lakatos’s methodology of scientific research programmes, and Larry Laudan’s problem-solving model of scientific progress—the essay contends that the diversity–performance literature has not yet achieved the conditions necessary for cumulative knowledge, because scholars routinely investigate different causal relationships using distinct conceptualizations of diversity, varied performance measures, and multiple levels of analysis. A comprehensive review of approximately ninety studies published in leading management journals confirms this structural pattern: findings accumulate episodically rather than cumulatively, and comparable studies remain strikingly rare. Using the diversity–performance literature as a case, the essay maintains that cumulative knowledge in management depends not only on empirical rigor but on coordination at three levels: shared definitions of diversity and performance, a shared ontology specifying the categories and attributes those measures are actually built from, and attention to the mechanisms through which diversity produces its effects rather than merely whether it correlates with them.
Corporate codes of ethics (CCE) do more than express values and prescribe conduct. Through them, organizations interpret moral expectations, guide decisions, and hold agents answerable. This raises a prior philosophical question: under what conditions can an organization legitimately claim and exercise moral authority through CCE? Through a problem-driven normative reconstruction connecting business ethics with philosophical accounts of practical authority, moral justification, bounded moral pluralism, and moral agency, this article identifies five interdependent conditions: explicit moral justification; a limited and internally ordered moral core; legitimate and contestable contextual interpretation; jurisdictional and moral limits to hierarchical authority; and the orientation, support, and accountability of moral judgment. Together, these conditions form an integrated architecture linking codified moral content with organizational standing, jurisdiction, interpretive governance, and responsible agency. Their joint satisfaction supports a defeasibly legitimate claim to organizational moral authority, while particular exercises of that authority remain subject to moral assessment. By shifting normative analysis from CCE as purported bearers of authority to the organizational claim advanced and the authority exercised through them, the framework distinguishes the moral validity of prescriptions from the moral legitimacy of organizational authority and integrates moral content, organizational power, contextual interpretation, and moral agency. The article contributes to business ethics and the philosophy of management by explaining how organizational norm-setting can guide action and support accountability while remaining answerable to defensible moral reasons and responsible moral judgment.
This study advances leadership theory by identifying the classical Confucian and Mencian virtues of ren, yi, li, and xin as proximal moral mechanisms through which leaders exercise authority in pursuit of institutional purposes. Members’ needs for hope, trust, compassion, and stability are treated as enabling conditions and mediated effects rather than as primary ends or moral constraints. Leadership is defined structurally as the functional role of bearing responsibility for directing an institution, organization, community, or other collective toward its constitutive purposes and possessing sufficient authority or practical capacity to do so. That authority may be formal or informal, and formal institutional office is common but not necessary. The effectiveness and moral quality of leadership are evaluated separately. Through comparative philosophical analysis grounded in primary Confucian and Mencian texts and contemporary leadership literature, the study proposes a virtue-based framework that links moral self-cultivation, governance, authority, and institutional purpose. Correcting authoritarian misreadings through textual-philosophical rebuttal, it integrates classical virtue theory with Self-Determination Theory (SDT), Maslow’s hierarchy, and Gallup’s 2025 leadership needs data, producing four testable propositions linking virtue cultivation to member psychological states and institutional legitimacy. The contribution offers an agenda for structural equation modeling (SEM) and longitudinal validation across organizational, political, entrepreneurial, and cross-cultural contexts.
The relationship between Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems and managers is increasingly intricate. Traditional managerial practices such as data collection, analysis, problem-solving, and decision-making have evolved considerably, with some already automated by AI. Management research has explored human-machine interactions, and empirical studies have investigated issues related to technology, efficiency, and managerial roles. As AI systems increasingly influence management practices, practitioners often neglect the philosophical ideas and theories that underpin them. In this paper on the “AI Revolution,” we draw on various philosophical concepts and viewpoints to deepen understanding of AI in management. We first present seven articles examining different philosophical aspects of AI that we included in this special issue. They discuss the limits of automating high-impact decisions, the relationship between AI-produced knowledge and expertise, and concerns about losing autonomy and critical-thinking skills. In the second part, we further examine the conditions of managerial agency. We argue that instead of aspiring to keep the “human in the loop,” we should aim to keep our “agency in the loop.”
