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.
Building bridges is among the most attractive images in contemporary leadership and management discourse. It evokes connection, mediation and the overcoming of distance. This article does not argue that the field as such is governed by a single imperative of connection. Rather, it examines a recurrent epistemic-normative pattern across influential strands of that discourse, in which connection, mediation and integration become intelligible as signs of responsible leadership, while separation, refusal or delay risk appearing as deficits. Using a conceptual-philosophical method, the article treats bridging as an analytical figure for a broader connective logic that shapes what can appear as mature, professional and responsible action. It situates this logic within literatures on boundary spanning, collaborative and integrative leadership, network governance, systems thinking, culture, sensemaking and change leadership, while distinguishing functional coordination and mediation from the moralization of bridging as a default evaluative good. To make the epistemic costs of this connective logic visible, the article develops counter-figures drawn from Kafka, Simmel, Greek mythology, cartography and infrastructure theory. These figures articulate logics of transition in which separation, asymmetry, delay or non-crossing are not treated as failures, but as meaningful conditions of judgement. The article contributes to philosophy of management by developing threshold awareness as reflexive attention to the epistemic-normative framing through which a situation becomes intelligible. It already involves evaluation at the level of that framing while leaving open the substantive practical judgement of what should be done.
This study examines how common good–oriented values are interpreted and enacted within sustainable food practices from both consumer and organizational perspectives. Drawing on virtue ethics and personalist business ethics, the study adopts the Personalist Principle and the Common Good Principle as its normative core and conceptualizes food systems as moral contexts in which human dignity, responsibility, and sustainability are mediated in everyday economic life. Adopting a qualitative and interpretive research design, the study combines focus group discussions with a semi-structured expert interview to integrate consumer and organizational perspectives. The data are analyzed to explore how ethical expectations, value orientations, and practical constraints shape the interpretation and enactment of common good–oriented practices across different actor perspectives. The Economy for the Common Good is employed as an interpretive framework through which these principles are examined in organizational practice. The findings show that common good–oriented practices are realized through solidarity-based relationships with suppliers, sufficiency-oriented assortment strategies, and value-aligned interactions with customers, while remaining embedded in competitive market conditions. They reveal both convergence and tension between ethical ideals and their realization in practice, as shared values such as human dignity, solidarity, and ecological responsibility are mediated by institutional constraints and differentiated understandings of responsibility. By integrating multiple actor perspectives, the study contributes to philosophy of management and business ethics by empirically grounding common good theory in concrete economic practice and highlighting the role of organizational mediation in the realization of ethical principles in practice.
This study is a conceptual-theoretical investigation that employs a transdisciplinary philosophical lens to examine the relationship between Digital Sustainability (DS) and Eco-Environmental Sustainability (EES). Using epistemic, metaphysical, ontological, and normative reasoning, we argue that DS must be normatively and ontologically subordinated to EES due to the inherent reliance of digital infrastructures on natural ecosystems. The paper advances an original normative–ontological framework that clarifies why DS can only be normatively legitimate when positioned within the ecological boundaries defined by EES. Our analysis establishes that DS must be embedded within EES because digital infrastructures depend fundamentally on ecosystemic energy, material resources, and biophysical stability. For managers and policymakers, this subordination implies that governance frameworks, incentives, and technology standards are only legitimate when they reinforce eco-environmental resilience. We propose a balanced governance strategy that balances precautionary and proactionary approaches, sets eco-performance thresholds for digital rollouts, and incentivizes interoperability, modularity, and energy efficiency. Further investigation is warranted to examine the responsible management implications of DS as artificial intelligence (AI) advances and as artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) potentially emerge, developments that could substantially intensify environmental and ethical challenges amid accelerating climate and environmental crises.
