Exploring New Zealand Business Ethics: Values, Virtues, and Catholic Social Teaching

Introduction

 Shareholders want to see returns on their investments, corporate directors want performance bonuses, banks thrive on interest-bearing loans, and universally, governments strive to increase revenues without penalising taxpayers.[2] The global financial crisis of 2008 seemed to be a breaking point and since then the popularity of the idea of a “moral economy” has grown. However, it is difficult to agree on the moral economy issues that surface when normative economics confront rising cultural pluralism. Frequently, the term “moral economy” may simply be interpreted as a symbol to be invoked that adds further to muddled thinking rather than a meaningful concept. One explanation for the increasing popularity of the phrase is that it counters the self-serving materialism that some believe is portrayed in modern market economies. Whilst one group may view moral economy as peoples’ actions and understandings in terms of the material gains arising from a transactionary activity, another group may perceive moral economy as the activities and relationships that reflect a concern for values arising from an activity.

Given the universal scale and the nature of economic problems and their concomitant welfare impacts, radical political economy debates remain important and need to be continually revisited to understand the need for moral considerations in the modern economy. This article contributes to the radical political economy debate by encouraging us to rethink our ideas underpinning our notion of what a moral economy is. The article highlights the centrality of relationship and reciprocity in moral economy and suggests that the values and beliefs portrayed in the principles of Catholic social doctrine offer a convincing ethical system that resonates with ethical business practice and has the capacity to fortify the common good in society. Drawing on survey responses to a series of vignettes from an empirical case study, the article examines New Zealand business managers’ decisions through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching to explore how personal values can influence business decisions.

The Moral Economy

Using the word “moral” can be problematic because the term can be employed in either an evaluative or a descriptive sense.[3] For example, from an evaluative perspective, it might refer to considering something on a continuum of “acceptable” to “unacceptable.” However, when used in a descriptive sense, the word may be used to convey or imply whatever the user perceives to be a better world according to his or her perception of “morality.”[4] Viewing morals in a descriptive sense makes it possible to consider a person’s morality even if one rejects that person’s view of what constitutes a better world. Advocates of the free market would defend this idea of moral economy citing that in a free market, individuals make their own decisions to improve their lives rather than having decisions imposed upon them. They would argue that free choice promotes the efficient and effective distribution and allocation of economic resources that culminate in increased welfare.[5] However, this is also the moral free market that witnessed the 2008 global financial crisis, precipitated by the rebranding of high risk financial assets into derivatives that were on sold to third parties with reduced risk ratings. Tagging something with the adjective “moral” presents challenges of its own because the term embodies that same thing with a sense of being a widely-shared value rather than an individual’s personal value. The term “moral” can come “perilously close to sounding like a slogan, a rallying cry that calls for support and hinders reflection … that impedes careful thought rather than encouraging it.”[6]

Pope Francis expresses concern for a morality that “sees everything as irrelevant unless it serves one’s own immediate interests ... which drives one person to take advantage of another.”[7] What Francis is calling for is a fresh holism or “integral ecology” which means an anthropology that is aware of peoples’ interconnectedness with one another, that “cares for the poor, protects culture, directs technologies towards their highest purposes, overcomes consumerism, returns dignity to work, and protects the environment.”[8] A thread that runs through Francis’ message is striving for “the common good” which he defines as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual member’s relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment.”[9] He adds that, ”society as a whole and the state in particular, are obliged to defend and promote the common good” – a key pillar that frames the principles of Catholic Social Teaching (CST).

Francis argues that the laissez-faire economic model to which contemporary society adheres is bound by “the principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, [and] reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy.”[10] Pope Benedict XVI insists that

efforts are needed … not only to create “ethical” sectors or segments of the economy or the world of finance, but to ensure that the whole economy – the whole of finance – is ethical, not merely by virtue of an external label, but for its respect for requirements intrinsic to its very nature.[11]

The primacy of CST encourages individuals to go beyond being simply tethered to a transactionary marketplace to also consider matters like social justice, equity and common good that inform needs and means of economic life and provide a better path towards human flourishing.

CST and Living for Others

The four permanent or foundation principles of social doctrine that constitute the essence of CST are: the dignity of the human person, the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity.[12] The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of The Church (CSDC)[13] stresses that these principles are

of a general and fundamental character, since they concern the reality of society in its entirety: from close and immediate relationships to those mediated by politics, economics and law; from relationships among communities and groups to relations between peoples and nations.

The other CST principles include options for the poor, economic justice, stewardship of God’s creation, the promotion of peace, and participation.

The principles of CST should not be considered in isolation but rather as interconnected “expressions of Christian anthropology.”[14] These are described by Clark[15] as being “the Church’s explicit and official grappling with contemporary and social problems.” Naturally, there is a great deal of scepticism at the prospect of achieving such a compassionate and caring way of living because of the belief that humans are hedonistic and self-serving. However, humans have the capacity to be both selfish on one hand and altruistic on the other and it is held that our ethical nature promotes our altruistic tendencies ahead of those egotistical ones and so, an ethical framework that simultaneously favours the flourishing of others as well as an individual stands a better chance of going forward.[16]

The first principle, the dignity of the human person, is at the heart of CST and recognises and respects the intrinsic worth of every human being and requires a duty of respect for every human being.[17] This principle “is the foundation of all the other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine.”[18]

The second principle is the common good and stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people and is expressly referred to as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more easily.”[19] The essence of common good is that the welfare of each individual is bound up with that of the community; and where everyone is responsible for everyone.[20] Thus, “Human flourishing and the quality of common life are linked by the common good.”[21] We realize our dignity and rights with others, in community and “human beings grow and achieve fulfilment in community. How we organize our society, in economics and politics, in law and policy, directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community.”[22]

The common good is something that members of a community attain through collective endeavour—everyone is bound to contribute towards the welfare of the greater society. In other words, the common good is understood as “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment.”[23] The common good is two dimensional. It applies to individuals, who should not be thought of as isolated and it also applies to the members of society as a whole.[24] Whilst a person may be treated as an individual that “naturally is a part of a group that furnishes him help to live well,”[25] that person is also part of society where “the common good is a good that, in its essence, is distributed to all and to each.”[26] Each individual is not the end of the common good, but all of the individuals simultaneously. The common good, in fact, “can be understood as the social and community dimension of the moral good.”[27]

The third principle, solidarity, refers to the equality of all human beings in terms of dignity and rights and to the duty that each person has to further society’s commitment to fair conditions for everyone.[28] Clark advocates that solidarity and human rights exist as mutually dependent and are essential to the development of a complete human person or community.[29] Similarly, Martin Luther King stated, “all life is interrelated. All men [humans] are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.”[30] We rely upon one another and are influenced by one another’s choices and actions. Solidarity is not only a core principle of CST but also a moral virtue.[31]

Jeurissen notes that, from a business perspective, solidarity is usually included among the features of corporate citizenship behaviour giving the example of a company expressing solidarity by reducing social inequalities.[32] In short, the principle of solidarity can be defined as the obligation of contributing to the common good of the society.

Subsidiarity is the fourth central principle of the Church’s Social Doctrine[33] and advocates that high-level institutions, such as the Government, should support rather than control the activities of lower-level social institutions such as families, communities, and companies. This idea is based upon the assumption that such activities are better performed by the groups involved in the activities.[34] When the needs in question cannot adequately be met at the lower level, then it is not only necessary, but imperative that higher levels of government intervene.[35] Thus, “Subsidiarity helps us to translate our sense of solidarity into social justice.”[36] From a practical perspective, the principle of subsidiarity supports human dignity and freedom and acknowledges that it is people who are at the heart of business activities.[37] Firms can play a role by providing an environment that encourages employees to develop their capabilities, strengthen organisations, and develop ethical business practices.[38] The next section considers how the principles of CST may be operationalised in the space of ethical business practice.

Business Ethics

Values “are beliefs that people have about what is important or worthwhile to them. Values influence behaviour because people seek more of what they value.”[39] Values are subjective, changeable and personal. Virtues, on the other hand, reflect objective and absolute behaviour that demonstrates a high regard for what is right or wrong, are universally agreed upon and arise from the nature of God.

Benson debates

whether it is wise to use the language of values at all in relation to teaching about morals and ethics when it has been demonstrated that it is harder to interpret virtues language subjectively and easier to interpret values language that way. [40]

He brings clarity to the debate by drawing attention to the “problem of values language” and reflects on what “values” and “virtues” imply, independent of one another, with respect to moral tradition. Benson is a critic of the wide and confusing use of the term “values” that is used across the disciplines and in ordinary discourse and endorses Grant’s summary of the “values language” problem: “values is an obscuring language for morality used when the idea of purpose has been destroyed.”[41] Benson also highlights the similitude between the cuckoo that ejects an egg from the nest of another bird’s and replaces it with one of its own, much like the displacement of the term “virtues’ with ‘values’. Like the cuckoo, “values language” has laid claim to a term that does not belong.[42]

Giving substance to this argument, Grant observes:

Everybody uses the word “values” to describe our making of the world: capitalists and socialists, atheists and avowed believers, scientists and politicians. The word comes to us so platitudinously that we take it to belong to the way things are. It is forgotten that before Nietzche and his immediate predecessors, men did not think about their actions in that language. They did not think that they made the world valuable, but that they participated in its goodness.[43]

Much like the trickster cuckoo, says Benson, “values” language is the fraudulent imposter who obscures moral discourse. Today’s seemingly ubiquitous “language of values” has usurped the position of earlier traditions that acknowledged a framework of “virtues” relating to the “good” as opposed to “values” that are simply personal choices. Benson insists that, unlike values, virtues emanate from a shared moral tradition, and it is impossible to speak of a purely personal “virtue.” [44] Orwell observed that meaningless words can pervert language and the subsequent poor usage of these words “can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better”.[45]

Joining shared nouns with the term “values” gives us the illusion that something specific is being shared …. so we have “Australian values”, “Christian values”, “family values” … as if they are shared and have meaning.[46]

Despite individuals intuitively striving for what they believe to be right or good or true, without a tradition of morals, claims towards virtues are relative because they remain subjectively “mine” and not “yours.” Confusing “virtues” with “values” and understandings of morality threatens to undermine the traditional classifications of the “cardinal virtues of justice, wisdom, moderation and courage that were then perfected by the theological virtues of faith, hope and love.”[47]

Kerns maintains that ultimately it’s one’s values that drive one’s behaviour.[48] Thus, “In a nutshell values exert influence over our attitudes, and attitudes influence our behaviour.”[49] Values inform our attitude and this is born out in how individuals respond to one another and to situations. Drawing on Aristotle’s virtue-based ethics reflected in the Cardinal Virtues of temperance, fortitude (often called courage), and justice, Kerns suggests there are a universally appealing core subset of virtuous values that influence ethical behaviour. Consistently ethical behaviour, according to Kerns, requires alignment between each of the virtuous values, the associated attitudes and behaviour. Examples of this are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Relationship between virtuous values, attitudes and ethical behaviour

Collectively, virtuous values, actions, and behavioural standards can be expressed in the following formula that Kerns suggests can be used as a basis to encourage ethical business behaviour:

 VIRTUOUS VALUES + ALIGNED ACTIONS + BEHAVIOURAL STANDARDS/CODES = INCREASED ETHICAL BEHAVIOUR[50]

To explore this in more detail, a survey was used to consider the relationship between business managers’ values and virtues and business decisions and how these decisions may align with the principles of CST. The survey also explored the relationship between religious affiliations, levels of religious commitment, and business ethics.

Study Method

An online survey instrument was sent to approximately 1100 businesspeople who were members of the Manawatu Chamber of Commerce in New Zealand as well as to recent Massey University MBA graduates. A total of 117 responses were returned which corresponds with a response rate of eleven percent. Respondents were asked to rate ethical issues incorporated into sixteen business decisions described in short vignettes (see Appendix 1) that address a wide range of hypothetical business scenarios. The vignettes are drawn from Longenecker et. al. who conducted a similar study to this that also included evangelical versus non-evangelical attributes.[51] Using scenarios or vignettes makes it possible to include more background detail surrounding an ethically questionable issue and it is thought that this elicits higher quality data than from simple questions.[52]

Respondents considered each vignette and rated it according to their personal values on a scale of 1 (never acceptable) to 7 (always acceptable). Low average scores show a strong level of disapproval of unethical behaviour thereby revealing what may be considered to be “superior ethical judgment.”[53] The survey instrument was pilot tested and refined using web-based software Qualtrics XM (2019). The software platform allows the researcher to construct the survey instrument and distribute it using an email list. The results can be downloaded in multiple formats thereby allowing them to be analysed with a choice of statistical analysis software, in this case, Microsoft Excel Analysis ToolPak.

Results

After responding to demographic questions and identifying their management level, professional job status and business sector affiliation the respondents scored their levels of acceptability for sixteen vignettes (Table 2). They were also asked to indicate which faith category they identified with (if any) as well as the level of importance they attached to the category. The survey revealed that sixteen percent of respondents were affiliated to Protestant churches, nine percent to Catholic churches, and eight percent to non-denominational churches, ten percent to “other churches,” and the remaining fifty-six percent of respondents did not identify with any faith category. The mean responses to the sixteen vignettes for religious groups were compared and the mean responses were not statistically significantly different.

An example of how the concerns of CST are reflected in business is the concern for human dignity implicitly expressed when individuals or commercial entities individually or collectively embrace the principles of Catholic social teaching. This can contribute towards a way of behaving and thinking that promotes the protection of goods and services for the common good. With a world subjected to intense materialism and a reduced respect for human life, Catholic social teaching advocates the combination of human dignity and the sacredness of human life to form a foundation or cornerstone upon which a moral vision of society can be built.[54] Every human being’s dignity is equal and it is respect for this that forms the basis for the Catholic social teaching and is the basis of a just and nurturing community.

Respondents also revealed the intensity of their religious interests as being of high, moderate, low or no importance to them. Individuals from the “high importance” and “moderate importance” groups were combined and individuals from the “low importance” and “no importance” groups were combined. The means of the two groups were compared using an independent samples t-test procedure. The results showed that participant responses did not differ significantly, however, the results from the remaining seven vignettes were significantly different at = 0.05 where, somewhat predictably, the mean values of the “high-moderate” importance group revealed what might be considered a higher level of ethical judgement than the “low-no” group (Table 3).

Overall, the comparisons indicate that respondents who declared higher importance levels for their religious affiliations exhibited superior ethical judgment regarding questionable ethical decisions and are directly related to the common good. The results support the idea that religious devotion contributes to higher ethical judgment.

Table 3. Mean responses to ethical vignettes (these are set out in full in Appendix 1) from ‘high/moderate’ and ‘low/no’ groups according to the importance of religion to them (n=117)

CONCLUSION

While virtues are universal, immutable, external from the nature of God and underpin the character of individuals, the values that any individual ultimately displays or expresses are their own. They are based on what that person decides is important to him or her. The article is not suggesting that CST provides a “technical solution” to business problems or challenges, rather it is a “careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order … it belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.”[55]

Sources such as Papal encyclicals, the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church,[56] and contributions from theologians contain insights basic to socioeconomic policy and business management that informs CST and allows it to be used as a lens through which one may examine the ethical nature of both the economy and business organisations.[57] In a sense, CST offers a blended moral theory and provides direction that goes beyond that offered by a denominational morality because it submits to a universal set of coherent principles that influence today’s business communities, public policy and consumers in the discharge of its ethical obligations.[58] In addition, “academics testing or articulating the efficiency, efficacy, and ethicality of [business] systems can also gain from the general insights provided by Catholic social teaching.”[59]

Rather than a purely profit-driven approach to business, CST advocates for an ethical foundation to economics policy.

Insofar as they are instruments, the entire economy and finance, not just certain sectors, must be used in an ethical way so as to create suitable conditions for human development and for the development of peoples … the intention to do good must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce goods.[60]

Pope Francis is equally forthright,

Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world.[61]

Individuals, businesses, and communities who are economic actors are also moral actors. This implicitly obligates them with inescapable obligations. CST does not reject the maxim of wealth creation, although, as Pope Leo[62] noted “when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over.” CST accepts competition and recognises the need for profit as a reward for risk and uncertainty and it is the nature of CST to be supportive of free enterprise. However, the brand of financial capitalism that led up to the 2008 financial crisis damaged the common good. Any private enterprise that specifically designs mechanisms to solely reward shareholders while passing on the costs to attain those rewards to private citizens and governments, ignores environmental externalities, and disregards employees and customers, is inherently amoral by making clear ethical decisions to prioritise individual wealth-accumulating behaviour.[63] Similarly, in Laudato si’ Francis highlights a number of socio-economic challenges connected to individualism, corporatisation, globalisation and environmental degradation and he appeals to all humankind for “a new and universal solidarity” that stresses the need to “seek other ways of understanding the economy and progress.”[64]

Prioritising factors such as employment conditions, worker satisfaction, welfare, or contributions to the common good would be an anathema to some business leaders who implicitly condone inequality when they justify large salaries and incentivised bonus schemes that reward an already wealthy elite. At the same time, some employees are considered to be atomised factors of production akin to commodities owned by companies to be traded in the market or retained if market signals and economic output are positive.

This article provides evidence of a high level of moral judgement in New Zealand businesses and, when a religious factor in ethical business decision-making is included, the results show that religious commitment improves moral judgements associated with business decision-making. This positive relationship between business ethics and religion suggests businesses may benefit from adopting a more supportive or tolerant approach to religious issues in the workplace.

A limitation of this study is that the survey instrument explored the perceptions of individuals in business environments rather than measuring their ethical behaviour. Longenecker cautioned that while religious characteristics may have an effect on moral judgment and moral intention this does not necessarily translate to affecting moral behaviour. [65]

The common good is central to any notion of moral economy. It acknowledges human beings as mutually dependent social creatures who intuitively subscribe to or resonate with the notion of a moral economy and reject claims that may disadvantage one person in order to benefit another and reject excessive profit seeking and exploitation of labour. The common good is a normative force that frames understandings of the meaning of justice, fairness and compassion and authenticity.

Whilst the notion of “moral economy” is not new, any contemplation of the concept remains important because it elevates and informs communities, economies, moral systems, and societal norms and mores. Despite the traditional notion that CST stresses principles and criteria, this article shows that CST is also a virtue-based approach where “Christian love (charity) animates and inspires all other virtues and principles.”[66]

APPENDIX 1.

Ethical vignettes used in survey (adapted from Longenecker, 2004, p 384). The words in brackets are included as brief descriptors for Table 3.

PLEASE INDICATE HOW ACCEPTABLE YOU FIND THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS DECISIONS (Rated on a seven-point scale from 1=never acceptable to 7= always acceptable)

A. An executive earning $200,000 a year padded his expense account by about $3,000 a year (padding).

B. In order to increase profits, a general manager used a production process which exceeded legal limits for environmental pollution (pollution).

C. Because of pressure from his Head Office, a financial advisor recommended a type of share which he did not consider a good investment (bad shares).

D. A small business received one-quarter of its gross revenue in the form of cash. The owner reported only one-half of the cash receipts for income tax purposes (undeclared income).

E. A company paid a $500,000 ‘‘consulting’’ fee to an official of a foreign country. In return, the official promised assistance in obtaining a contract which should produce $10 million profit for the contracting company (bribery & corruption).

F. A company director found that a competitor had made an important scientific discovery, which would sharply reduce the profits of his own company. He then hired a key employee of the competitor in an attempt to learn the details of the discovery (poaching staff).

G. A road building contractor deplored the chaotic bidding situation and cutthroat competition. He, therefore, reached an understanding with other major contractors to permit bidding which would provide a reasonable profit (cartel).

H. A company director recognised that sending expensive Christmas gifts to purchasing agents might compromise their positions. However, he continued the policy since it was common practice and changing it might result in loss of business for everyone (Christmas bribe).

I. A company director learned that his company intended to announce a share split and increase its dividend. On the basis of this information, he bought additional shares and sold them at a profit following the announcement (insider trading).

J. A corporate executive promoted a loyal friend and competent manager to the position of regional director in preference to a better qualified manager with whom he had no close ties (nepotism).

K. An engineer discovered what he perceived to be a product design flaw which constituted a safety hazard. His company declined to correct the flaw. The engineer decided to keep quiet, rather than taking his complaint outside the company (safety hazard).

L. A company accountant used a legal method of financial reporting which concealed some embarrassing financial facts, which would otherwise become public knowledge (unethical concealment).

M. An employer received applications for a supervisor’s position from two equally qualified applicants but hired the male applicant because he thought that some employees might resent being supervised by a female (gender bias).

N. As part of the marketing strategy for a product, the producer changed its colour and marketed it as ‘‘new and improved,’’ even though its other characteristics were unchanged (false advertising).

O. A cigarette manufacturer launched a publicity campaign challenging new evidence from the Ministry of Health’s that cigarette smoking is harmful to the smoker’s health (cynical practice).

P. An owner of a small firm obtained a free copy of a copyrighted computer software program from a business friend rather than spending $800 to obtain his own program from the software dealer (software piracy).

John Holland is a Professor of Environmental Management at Massey University with a PhD in economics from the University of Natal. He has published widely in economics, zoology, environmental management and theology. He has just completed a PhD in theology from the University of Notre Dame Australia that considers the tolerance of modern neoliberalism for the economic status quo and its indifference to social responsibility.

[1] K. Raworth, “Day of the Doughnut,” Resurgence and Ecologist 30 (September/October 2017): 25.

[2] Raworth, “Day of the Doughnut,” 25.

[3] J. G. Carrier, “Moral Economy: What’s in a Name,” Anthropological Theory 18.1 (2018): 18–35, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1463499617735259.

[4] Carrier, “Moral Economy,” 18–35.

[5] Carrier, “Moral Economy,” 18–35.

[6] Carrier, “Moral Economy,” 19.

[7] Pope Francis, Laudato Si’: On Care for Our Common Home (London: The Catholic Truth Society, 2015), 123.

[8] John Helliwell, Richard Layard, and Jeffrey Sachs, “World Happiness Report 2017,” 28, https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2017/HR17.pdf.

[9] Pope Francis, “Laudato Si’,” 157.

[10] Pope Francis, “Laudato Si’,” 159.

[11] N. Ormerod, P. Oslington, and R. Koning, “The Development of Catholic Social Teaching on Economics: Bernard Lonergan & Benedict XVI,” Theological Studies 73 (2012): 10.

[12] D. Melé, “Virtues, Values, and Principles in Catholic Social Teaching,” in Handbook of Virtue Ethics in Business and Management, eds. A. J. G. Sison, G.R. Beabout, I. Ferrero, International Handbooks in Business Ethics (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2017), 7.

[13] “Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church,” Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html#CHAPTER%20FOUR. (2004), para. 161.

[14] “Compendium,” para. 9.

[15] Meghan J. Clark, The Vision of Catholic Social Thought: The Virtue of Solidarity and the Praxis of Human Rights (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2014), 4.

[16] M. Ricard, Altruism: The Power of Compassion to Change Yourself and the World (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2015), passim.

[17] “Compendium,” para. 160.

[18] “Compendium,” para. 164.

[19] A. Vaccaro and A. J. G. Sison, “Transparency in Business: The Perspective of Catholic,” Journal of Business Ethics 100 (2011): 21; “Compendium,” para. 164.

[20] “Compendium,” para. 333.

[21] J. M. Thompson, Introducing Catholic Social Thought (New York: Orbis, 2010), 59.

[22] Paul Devitt, “Principles pf Catholic Social Teaching,” The Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn (2019), 1. http://cgcatholic.org.au/services-directory/councils-commissions/social-justice-commission/principles-of-catholic-social-teaching/, 1.

[23] Pope Francis, “Laudato Si’,” 156.

[24] B. Lewis, The Neo-Thomist Theory of the Common Good and Catholic Social Teaching (2014). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2454699

[25] R. Nash, Freedom, Justice, and the State (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1980), 107.

[26] Lewis, “The Neo-Thomist,” 12.

[27] “Compendium,” para. 164.

[28] “Compendium,” para. 192-193.

[29] Clark, “The Vision.”

[30] Martin Luther King Jr, “Social Movements and Radicalism in Post-War American History,” in Daniel Matlin. The Historical Journal, 55.1 (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 274.

[31] Compendium, para. 1930.

[32] R. Jeurissen, “Institutional Conditions of Corporate Citizenship,” Journal of Business Ethics 53 (2004): 87.

[33] “Compendium,” para. 185.

[34] “Compendium,” para. 186; D. Melé, “Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity in Organizational Forms,” Journal of Business Ethics 60 (2005): 293–305.

[35] Learning to Give, Major Themes of Catholic Social Teaching (2017), https://www.learningtogive.org.

[36] P. Devitt, Principles pf Catholic Social Teaching. The Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, (2019) 1. http://cgcatholic.org.au/services-directory/councils-commissions/social-justice-commission/principles-of-catholic-social-teaching/

[37] D. Melé “Exploring the Principle of Subsidiarity,” 293–305.

[38] Vaccaro and Sison, “Transparency”, 24.

[39] G. Seijts, Good Leaders Learn: Lessons from Lifetimes of Leadership, (Routlidge. 2014) 8.

[40] D. Daintree, (ed.) Creative Subversion: The Liberal Arts and Human Educational Fulfilment (West End, Queensland: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), 2.

[41] G. Grant, “Time as History,” in D. Daintree, (ed.) Creative Subversion: The Liberal Arts and Human Educational Fulfilment (West End, Queensland: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), 5.

[42] In Daintree, “Time as History,” in D. Daintree (ed.), Creative Subversion: The Liberal Arts and Human Educational Fulfilment (West End, Queensland: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), 8.

[43] Daintree, “Time as History,” 44-45.

[44] I. Benson, “Values Language,” In Daintree. Creative Subversion: The Liberal Arts and Human Educational Fulfilment (West End, Queensland: Connor Court Publishing, 2018), 6.

[45] George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (London: Horizon, 1946), 11.

[46] Benson, “Values Language,” 29.

[47] Benson, “Values Language,” 28.

[48] C. D. Kerns, “Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture,” Graziado Business Review 6.3 (2003). https://gbr.pepperdine.edu /2010/08/creating-and-sustaining-an-ethical-workplace-culture/

[49] Kerns, “Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture,” 1.

[50] Kerns, “Creating and Sustaining an Ethical Workplace Culture,” 2.

[51] G. J. Longenecker, J. W. Mckinney, and C. Moore, “Religious Intensity, Evangelical Christianity, and Business Ethics: An Empirical Study,” Journal of Business Ethics 55 (2004), 371–384.

[52] Longenecker et al., “Religious Intensity,” 377.

[53] Longenecker et al., “Religious Intensity,” 378.

[54] Catholic Charities Office for Social Justice (2019). WWW.cctwincities.org.l; J. M. Thompson Introducing Catholic Social Thought (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010), passim.

[55] Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo rei sociialis on Development Ethics, Encyclicals (1987), 41. http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sol- licitudo-rei-socialis.html.

[56] Compendium.

[57] E. Epstein, “Religion and Business: The Critical Role of Religious Traditions in Management Education,” Journal of Business Ethics 38.1 (2002): 91–96.

[58] T. A. Klein, and G. R. Laczniak, “Applying Catholic Social Teachings to Ethical Issues in Marketing.” Journal of Macromarketing 29.3 (2009): 233–43.

[59] Klein and Lacznia, “Applying Catholic Social Teachings,” 242.

[60] Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo, 65.

[61] Pope Francis, Laudato Si,189.

[62] Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, Encyclical (1891) 13. http://www.vatican.va/holy_ father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html

[63] C. Longley, Just Money: How Catholic Social Teaching can Redeem Capitalism (London: Theos, 2014), 53, 79.

[64] Longley, Just Money, 16.

[65] Longenecker et al., “Religious Intensity.” 383.

[66] Melé, “Virtues,” 11.