A NOTE ON STRATEGY, ETHICS & LEADERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY
When I look back over the way the subjects and circumstances of strategic management and
business ethics have changed (as well as politics and leadership) I would suggest that the
following 9 ideas are likely to have life-long importance for today’s business students, who
happen to “live in interesting times”. In coded form (write them out in full) the 8 ideas are:
1. FP&R (resilience)
2. RBMHG (goods)
3. KLMBS (limits)
4. LPAMC (levers)
5. PGMIBG (public-good)
6. CMHC
7. GEHI (intentions)
8. TBRC (dualism)
9. MFoC & MOMA (ethics)
This handout presents one ppt slide, or note, on each idea. We will refer to many of these ideas
during the course. Meanwhile, simply try to copy the slides (models) using pencil & ruler.
1. FP&R: future-proofing and resilience
2. RBMHG: reasonably-balanced mixture of the human goods
3. KLMBS: known limitations of market based systems
4. LPAMC: levers to pull to avoid mega-catastrophes
5. PGMIBG: public-good missions involving business and government
6. CMHC: conceptual model of hyper-competition
7. GEHI: the general effectiveness of human intentions
8. TBRC: table of blue vs. red components
9. MFoC & MOMA: the moral foundations of capitalism and a more-obviously-moral
approach
1. FP&R: future-proofing & resilience.
For various reasons (explained later) “Future-proofing’ and “Resilience” have become buzz-words amongst
CEOs since about 1995. This means that managers (or you) should:
(i) make sure all your people (helpers, team members) really understand what they are doing and “know the
situation and circumstances” (e.g. MA17, Tesco-spikes), recognize and avoid distractions (there are many,
especially with technology and media today), focus on the core business or authentic mission (e.g. in banking,
flying); have a disaster management plan, optimize capital structure, seek methods that are efficient in the
deeper sense of optimizing a combination of risk and cost (or profit); for example, consider avoiding
dependency on a single source of supply and consider building in parallel processes (like resilience in biology).
More generally, have a backup strategy or a next-strategy. Think about the KLMBS and why you are exploiting
some of them and perhaps compensating for others. Know your shareholders (maybe you) and what they are
doing. Try to achieve a balance in this respect and avoid extremes of “exploitation”.
(ii) Be resolute (deliberate, persistent) but flexible: if an entrepreneurial business entity fails (you own and
manage it), try again with a variant.
(iii) For some businesses, “future-proofing” and “resilience” has been taken to mean having security guards and
e-surveillance: “battening down the hatches of the property owners” to protect against the impoverished and
restless masses, quite like in medieval times. The strategic imperative here is “stability” or “steady as she goes”
which is an attempt by the relatively powerful and wealthy to hold their (and hence our) current course.
As always, there are two sides (+/-) to this defensive aspect of resilience (see 7 below). For example, in the
Philippines, you will find that the few ultra- modern shopping malls and supermarkets have many security
guards, because otherwise everything will be nicked, guaranteed (almost everyone there has very little money).
This “resilience” = “security” emphasis has obvious limitations: a good recent example from the UK (London)
is the Tesco window ledge spikes. These are very resilient, but nasty and a PR disaster (on CNN). It should be
obvious to any normal healthy person that if you are going to put spikes on your street-level ledges, in order to
deter homeless people from sleeping there, you should also pay or co- pay for a large homeless-shelter,
probably just around the corner. This is probably “what works”.
I would advise that the principles of future-proofing and resilience for oneself, your personal-plan for the next
40 years, should be based on similar ideas (an update from a famous Hamlet speech).
(i) Make sure (slowly) that you know what you are doing; work on acquiring fully-informed expertise in
something (could be anything, maybe fishing, maybe using power-point, maybe managing the checkout at
Walmart, or becoming a tax expert). The habit of being fully-informed then carries over to other situations, so
try to “know the situation and circumstances” (e.g. personal finances, food, fitness, medical issues, friends, etc.)
(ii) Avoid “living from paycheck to paycheck”. Even some very wealthy people stretch their finances much too
far. Put yourself in position where you don’t really mind if you have to quit or lose a job, because you have a
personal survival strategy that includes some sort of skill development or service to others. Try to avoid
harming self or others excessively and try to take opportunities to reduce suffering by self or others. Live your
life as much as possible in in meat-space, not in cyber-space. This is associated with “knowing the situation”
because no-one knows what’s really going on in cyberspace, nor its psychological effects; however, society is
apparently moving towards a trans-human divide (see later). Have a plan B at all times, but be resolute with
plan A until it has failed beyond recovery. If you don’t have a plan A, it’s OK, just use this one.
(iii) A good example of a personal backup (sourcing) strategy is to have two bank accounts so you can have two
ATM cards as you “travel” along life’s pathway or journey. Credit cards are good if you are able to pay them
off in full each month. Avoid borrowing for “consumption” (stuff you don’t need), only consider borrowing to
pay for assets that are enabling, or productive, or apparently-undervalued and when you don’t have cash.
(iv) “Know yourself”: Figure out how you can reduce the effects of your own personal limits (personal
SWOT). Part of the solution is to ask yourself “is there anything that you really want in this life?” Often there
is not; but if you do know what it is, focus on it until you get it (you have a good chance over your lifetime). If
not, try to envision a general way of living that you would enjoy and that is reasonably attainable within say 10
years. Don’t get sucked in to what you don’t really want (you have to think about this). Wilbur Smith (a South
African Author) wrote in 2014 about the current situation in the World: “If you have enough money you can do
whatever you want and no-one is going to stop you” (cf. the Beatles song “Money” and the Pink Floyd song
“Money”, Bruno Mars “Billionaire”). However, trying to max-out on personal wealth and negative freedom is
not a good bet. People who do this almost always crash and burn (movie: Point-Break). Basically your chances
are about 1%. On the other hand, you can’t help others without sometimes looking after yourself (i.e.
resilience).
(v) Reasonable balance is a very good bet (RBMHG) and this can be achieved over time. Do not worry about
survival (life and death) as an individual, because you will survive almost anything. “Non-survival” of a
business is something you will quickly recover from.
Know that “storms always pass” (fact). You can make up for bad years (maybe this year) by resolving to
live longer and better at the other end, after the storm has cleared. (This, in turn, would be a wise corporate
philosophy, e.g. for Malaysia Airlines, BofA, etc.). Quote: “Do not dwell on regrets of the past or unrealistic
hopes for the future. Embrace (be confident about and enjoy) the beauty of your own individuality (or your
enterprise).” Good strategy, ethics and leadership are the result of “knowing the situation”, including some
principles of ancient wisdom.
(vi)
2. RBMHG: a reasonably-balanced mixture of the human goods.
If we want to be serious strategists (or ethics consultants in an international context) we have to “know the
situation and circumstances”, so we have to know how human systems work. The full set of the classical human
goods (HGs) are an important part of this.
Wealth: “In the world today if you have enough money you can do whatever you want and no-one is going to
stop you” (Wilbur Smith 2014).
Nobility: this means trying to do something dignified, generous, kind, sociable and high-minded, even when
you have the power to do whatever you want (ethics?).
Happiness & pleasure: generally “good”; but the human psyche has dark places and humans can often be
happy by simply ignoring the suffering of others, or derive pleasure from abusing others.
Positive freedom: Ayn Rand and Karl Marx both wrote famously about the importance of positive freedom
and expressive rationality: how a human being ought to be free to express their authentic self. Ayn was a
Russian Jew (my ancestry) who escaped from the oppressive USSR to come to NYC in 1930. Karl was a
European Jew concerned with the condition of oppressed industrial workers in Europe. Positive freedom and the
fulfillment of human potential was also emphasized by Aristotle the classical Greek philosopher.
Negative freedom: Ayn was very worried about government restrictions on personal initiative and how to
ensure freedom from state regimes (Abraham Lincoln was concerned about this too). Karl was worried about
trapped factory workers with their capitalist bosses and how workers could free themselves from the constraints
imposed by private regimes. (If you think that your job in the private sector sucks, you will find that Karl has
many good explanations of why.)
These days, when we encounter (or re-formulate) ideas like these, it is often without regard for their history.
We also have to bear in mind that the “author” might be a computer, an AI or AGI system. It now seems
obvious that any productive entity should aim to co-produce a reasonably balanced mixture of the human goods.
Mintzberg wrote in 1970s about “implanting strategy” into organizations; but what we should do now, I
suggest, is to try to implant a RBMHG at the micro, meso, and macro levels. This goal is not the same as
“maximizing quarterly profits and current wealth of existing shareholders”. However, that “wealth” goal is
implicit in many strategy-models. The RBMHG goal is a good bet if you are trying to serve society (cf. GEHI),
or to reduce the overall level of suffering (ethics). Unfortunately, many people do not care much about that.
3. KLMBS: the known limitations of market based systems.
These are known (factual) “limitations” of markets with respect to implanting a RBMHG. They include the
“imperfections” wrt optimizing preference-satisfaction that are referred to in neo-classical economic theory. The KLMBS
are:
 Monopolistic tendencies (concentration of power, wealth)
 Ignores several aspects of Distributive-Justice (distribution of wealth and the HGs).
 Many lack the ability to pay for anything (no endowment, or legitimate opportunity)
 Lack of Information (about the things being exchanged, purchased)
 Preference vs. well-being (the dark psyche; the creation of desire)
 Externalities (e.g. un-priced pollution)
 Un-priced public-goods (e.g. the benefits we all obtain when everyone else is healthy).
 Lack of universal access to non-rival goods (in strong IPR regimes)
4. LPAMC: levers to pull to avoid mega-catastrophes (macro-environmental analysis)
With future-proofing in mind, James Martin (past president of the UK Royal Society, a position once held by
Sir Isaac Newton) identified “levers” that (he claims) would “ensure our future” if pulled in time, reducing the
likelihood of mega-cats and a massive “trans-human divide”. The levers involve: population control,
ubiquitous sensors, planetary-correct subsidies and entrepreneurship. All of these suggest international
business opportunities. Martin notes that corporations often resist these solutions (e.g. narrow lobbying, see
hyper-competition model). He argues that “we” have to continue with business and capitalism in some form
(including antitrust regulations to dilute corporate power) because he considers that efficient distributed
ethically-managed corporations surrounded by swarms of small enterprises are the best hope for the future; but
“we” must not continue with the “resisting” type of (quarterly profit-maximizing) business-as-usual.
5. PGSIBG: public-good strategies involving business and governments
6. CMHC: conceptual model of hyper-competition
7. GEHI: the general effectiveness of human intentions
Mintzberg’s 1980 model of intended and “realized” organizational strategy
8. TBRC. Table of Red vs. Blue components
COMPONENT
LEFT-POLE
RIGHT-POLE
KLMBS
Compensate, refrain
exploit
Exploiting KLMBS yields market-power and
generates “above normal” returns to s/h.
Value-priority
justice
efficiency
Econ.-efficiency implies aggregate wealth, so
these values are like HG’s
Variants
stakeholder
shareholder
Variants of capitalism (legal, cultural) or
models of strategic management (conceptual)
Capitals
multi-forms
financial forms
Human, social, ecological, cultural, moral,
political, economic; Classes of equity and debt
Politics
econ-left
econ-right
Strong positions often reflect partialknowledge, sense of identity, vague emotions
Timing
ethics now
ethics later
First get rich, then maybe give it to charity
when you get old (but you won’t give enough)
Co-opetition
co-operation C
competition D
Dynamic prisoners’ dilemma games explain a
lot about strategy and ethics. E.g. Tit-for-Tat
Language
values-based
value-based
There are separate (political) discourses, e.g.
“Value-Based-Mgmnt” means s/h wealth-maxn.
Agency (resp)
corporate
individual
Pol-left endorses CM-Resp concept (like
stakeholder modl.), right emphasizes indiv resp.
Agency (rights)
individual
corporate
Pol-right endorses CM-Ri like right to political
speech and funding. Left wants equal voices.
Trust
in governments
in markets
Right tends to trust markets more than
governments to deliver a satisfying HG mix.
Hopes
enlightenment for all
prosperity for self
Left wants to elevate peoples’ consciousness,
Right seeks personal salvation or prosperity.
Passions
isothymic
megalothymic
Passion for justice or for power? Plato noted the
two types of character (cf. virtue ethics).
Leader-style
transformational
transactional
t-forml leader inspires and changes others’
abilities; t-actl uses +/- incentives (exchanges)
Focus
We/the other
I/the self
Yin/Yang
yin
yang
Female and male aspects in balance. L-R
alignment is partial; yang includes “the light”
Science
Ecology
Engineering
Broadly, the right has an engineering view of
economics; left has ecological-understanding
Rate of innovn
Gradual, evolving
Rapid, driven
Weber noted that many do not want innovation,
but just want to live in their “accustomed way”
Ethics theories*
MOMA
MFoC
The partitioned ethics-set identifies and locates
forms of (pol-) moral-reasoning on both sides.
*See next ppt for the ethics theories.
Comments
Several psychological theories focus on this
fundamental distinction (Etzioni, Piaget, Wu)
9. MFoC & MOMA (partitioned ethics-set).
FORM OR THEORY
Consequentialism
Act vs. Rule sub-forms
Utilitarianism (without Justice).
Ethical Egoism.
Utility-maximization (in markets)
Utilitarianism with justice
Deontology
Ethic of Care.
Contractarianism
The spanning-theories
CENTRAL IDEA
Consider consequences for some HGs of each considered course of action
Each decision separately vs. use general rules justified by utilitarian criteria
Seek “the greatest good for the greatest number”, OK with slavery
Best for oneself (including identity aspects & freedoms)
Optimized satisfaction of participants’ preferences (good or bad). Associated
with ‘let market decide’, if you ignore KLMBS
“Greatest good… ” but no-one is made to suffer beyond some reasonable limit
Logic, categorical imperative: Golden rule, others as ‘ends’ (their well-being)
Feminist, care, kindness; Yin-Yang balance? Feminist or Socialist Revolution?
Moral-political, free agreement & exchange, veil of ignorance, max but equal
liberty for all, difference-principle of DJ
Dialectics (balance, synthesis), Pluralism (all forms), Pragmatism (inquiry),
Particularism (case-by-case) , Virtue-ethics (character).
See the following explanatory note on this (Ethics classes especially)…
Note on the partitioned ethics-set
1. Consequentialism: Consequentialist forms of reasoning (FR) and decision-making (DM) involve focusing
on the expected consequences of each considered course of action. The considered “consequences” in any
situation can involve any of the human goods (HGs) and there has are many arguments about which ones to
include. The 3 sub-forms U+J, U-J and Egoism each give priority to distinctive mixtures of HGs.
2. U – J i.e. Utilitarianism (without Justice). Utilitarianism is a FR that refers to seeking “the greatest good
for the greatest number”. This is vague, but the central point is that the DM should consider the good and bad
consequences of each course of action for as many people as possible or practical (vague) and then choose the
action with the greatest total expected net “good” or benefit. This is likely to be “without justice” because you
often have a situation where greatly harming (sacrificing) a few people (e.g. workers) is compensated by the
small gain of many (e.g. customers, the public). Think of slaves building the pyramids in ancient Egypt.
3. U + J i.e. Utilitarianism with justice. As discussed above, this involves choosing the action that is
expected to bring about the greatest overall good, but provided that (“subject to the constraint that”) no-one is
suffering harm beyond some reasonable limit. In other words, no-one should be expected to experience a huge
negative or bad, just because it is going to be compensated for by some “+” or good enjoyed by many.
4. Act & Rule sub-forms of utilitarianism (shown in the center of figure)
(i) Act-utilitarianism is where each decision is considered in the above way(s).
(ii) Rule-utilitarianism is where the DM first establishes some general rules, with each of those rules being
justified by utilitarian reasoning. The rules are then applied whenever the situation arises. An example of a U-J
rule in business might be “dismiss employees whenever, all things considered (morale, PR, legal costs) it is
expected to increase the shareholders’ wealth”
5. Ethical Egoism. This is the principle that one should choose the action with the best expected consequences
for oneself. This seems like the “ethic of business” (self-centered, selfish, greedy etc.) and the opposite of
normal ethics (care, love, kindness, etc.), which is why many comment that BE is a contradiction in terms, an
oxymoron. However, Egoism is a serious moral philosophy, for at least two reasons. The considered
consequences can include
(i) the long term, where one’s reputation for being altruistic (sacrifice your own expected utility for others), or simply a
good person, are expected to eventually “pay off” (Game theory), and
(ii) the deeper satisfaction of living authentically, according to your own “lights” (talents, values etc.). This involves a
sense of identity (expressive rationality) and it is associated with positive-freedom and negative freedom. Expressive
aspects are emphasized in MFoC and in MOMA, as depicted in the Figure and mentioned in the RBMHG note.
6. Utility-maximization in markets. This is the principle (backed up by mathematical equilibrium models)
that the price mechanism in a perfect market (no transaction costs, full information, etc.) enables all the
participants to satisfy their preferences to the greatest extent possible (i.e. maximizing overall utility of the
market participants). This result involving preference-relations might be taken as support for the broader notion
that it is best to “let the market decide” rather than trying to please everyone by some kind of central control
that oversees the HGs. However, in reality, markets are not “perfect” (see the KLMBS) and it is often noted that
the “utilities” being maximized (i.e. preferences being satisfied) have no moral content whatsoever. They might
reveal preferences for torture instruments, or nasty food, etc. (i.e. preference vs. well-being, as a KLMBS).
7. Contractarianism
This is a moral-political philosophy, a school of thought, in which ethics and morals are said to be ultimately
based on agreements (hence also exchanges) amongst free (un-coerced) individuals. This fits well with the
whole history of trade and business. The main philosopher is John Rawls. In his 1972 book “Theory of Justice”
he also derived two Contractarian principles of distributive justice, which the Pol-Right consider “Left”.
(i) we should strive to maximize liberty “subject to” (provided that we maintain) equal liberty for all
(ii) inequality is ok provided that the process that generates it also lifts the poor, the bottom (BoP).
The basic idea here is that the system that creates wealth should not obviously worsen the condition of the leastwell-off, should not create destitution (see 4th world). The dynamics of wealth in the middle are controversial
and complicated in the Global arena (creative destruction; multiple forms of capital, the LPAMC’s, etc.)
8. Deontology . this is a moral philosophy in which moral rules and principles are derived from logic, without
having to calculate (predict) any consequences or future state of the World. For example, a reason that one
should not steal, is that if everyone steals then property rights are undermined, but then the very idea of stealing
itself becomes meaningless. Lying is similar, but there are exceptions. Immanuel Kant is the philosopher most
closely associated with this form of reasoning. He derived two versions of the “categorical imperative” and
argued that they were equivalent to each other.
(i) only act according to a maxim (rule) that you want to be universalized (i.e. you would like everyone to
follow that rule) This is similar to the “Golden Rule” (do unto others…)
(ii) Never treat other people purely as a means to an end (e.g. don’t employ someone solely to make a profit
from them). Always treat others partly as “ends in themselves” (i.e. their flourishing is important to you).
It is worth discussing and reflecting on the fact that very many people today do not obey this “imperative” and
that the so-called “other golden rule” is often applied: those with the gold make the rules (and the Wilbur Smith
principle)
9. Ethic of Care. This is a branch of philosophy within late 20th century feminist studies and it is generally
credited to a philosopher K. Gilligan. The basic idea is also referred to in (i) Sun Tzu’s art of war: the leader
should make sure all the troops are comfortable in their tents, before he sleeps for the night; and (ii) in an old
English poem by Ellen Wheeler-Wilcox: “So many paths that wind and wind, but just the art of being kind, is
all this sad world needs”. The point is that we should try to care for each other in much the same way that mum
cared for us when we were young (if we were lucky) and this is regardless of how useful or rich we may
currently be. Our whole way of life including all our productive activities should obviously be based on this
“art of being kind” and an intention to care for others. However, many disagree with that prescription. They
think only about their material wealth, their status and their family (kin-altruism).
10. Moral-philosophies that span the L-R partition
10.1 Pluralism generally prescribes that a decision-maker ought to consider the entire set of forms of ethical
reasoning as they apply to a problem, and then attempt to reach a cognitive equilibrium through some sort of
disciplined reflection.
10.2 Dialectics: focusing on a patterns of thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis (combining both sides into something
new) in dynamic social and ecological systems
10.3 Pragmatism (classical American, William James, John Dewey, Charles Peirce) emphasizes inquiry,
comprehensiveness, invention, ecology and iteration or recursion, in the continuous search for moral and
practical truth.
10.4 Particularism (e.g. Dancy) claim that a morally sensitive person (or computer) does not really need any
given principles and that such principles are often misapplied. Particularists claim that morality does not have
any distinctive structure like the map in the Figure 2.5, a moral agent has to be skilled at identifying the
“morally relevant features” of each situation, but these vary greatly between cases.
10.5 Virtue-ethics (e.g. Solomon). When we think about “Ethics” we should focus only on peoples’ character.
Qualities like Striving for excellence, having Integrity (knowing how to integrate and synthesize; when to
follow rules, when to make exceptions). This form of ethics spans the partition; for example a passion for
justice and a passion for efficiency are both likely to be marks of a good character.
What is ‘strategy’ and ‘strategic management’? (note mainly for strategy classes, but also good for ethics classes)
In the mid-1960’s Kenneth Andrews at Harvard Business School published a textbook “Business strategy and policy” which described
some of the approaches used by upper levels of US corporations. Given the power and success of these corporations, “strategic
management” became a recognized subject in business schools around the World. Much of the material in early textbooks is of limited
relevance to the 21st century, but the basic idea of an integrative course on senior management issues has stuck. Around 1990 a UK
book “What is strategy and does it matter” written by an Oxford historian, endorsed the view that strategy is an ever changing body of
knowledge but that a deliberate known strategy can indeed “make a difference” (see GEHI for a development of this idea).
A good example of “knowing the situation and circumstances” (i.e. the relevant facts) was described recently by a Nobel Prize
winning (left-leaning) economist Robert Reich. The senior officers and early-shareholders at Amazon.com became million-orbillionaires. They deployed technology to co-ordinate resources in a way that has benefited customers (buyers, consumers, etc.) and
they are “job creators” because Amazon.com has a lot of employees who work tough jobs, with many other jobs created at carriers ,
FedeX, UPS etc.
This, however, is not the entire ‘circumstances’. The creative-destruction of the capital-formation process (Joseph Schumpeter’s
famous phrase) was clearly operating, in such a way that very many jobs were destroyed in traditional retail businesses. Many bookusers (buyers) are also (slightly harmed) by the co-produced decline of bookshops (Black Bear in Boone). ( “co-produced” because
several other dynamics were operating, such as hyper-competition in the pharmaceutical industry).
Many would look at this “situation” and say that something is wrong (!): if “we” focus only on profit, capital-accumulation and
efficient technology we are heading for big trouble (“brewing a sh—storm”, as one very right-leaning author put it, in 2013). It can be
argued that those billions should be re-deployed to provide opportunities for all, at least all the people whose jobs were destroyed.
The principles of “strategy” in the main textbooks (and much practice) do not say such about these political aspects of strategy, such
as corporate lobbying about this and other controversial issues (think of Keystone pipeline, or JV’s with the new Russia, for example).
Some of the more recent strategy books (like HJ) do have a few paragraphs at the end about “theories of justice” and CSR but they
don’t say how to integrate these into business practice and they don’t mention the fact that there is widespread cynicism
internationally regarding CSR. We will very carefully consider these aspects of strategy, as well.
One of the best known names in ‘strategy’ is the economist Michael Porter. I (Alan) read his 1980 book “Competitive Strategy”
(CS/CA) in London when it first came out and I was immediately struck by the fact that it was prescribing “moves” for for-profit
entities which were expressly intended to increase that entity’s market power; despite the fact that ‘monopolistic tendencies’ is one of
the standard known limitations of market-based systems (KLMBS). Another left-leaning Nobel prize Economist Joe Stiglitz* (who in
2006 correctly predicted an imminent financial collapse) made a similar observation in his 2012 book “The Price of Inequality”.
When companies gain market power they can profit by holding-back the competition and charging higher prices and this (ceteris
paribus) detracts from the public good. Even Stiglitz, always brilliant and thorough, did not mention that there might be some
offsetting public-good benefits to a company gaining market power:, for example if the company is very widely-held (owned) by mass
pension funds, or owned by a good government, or is actively compensating for some of the other KLMBS such as a company
working on restorative technologies.
It’s perhaps worth mentioning that Joseph Stiglitz was President of the World Bank, until he resigned because he was not comfortable
with the way it was heading; that is, too far to the econ-right, with its austerity policies and so on. That “discomfort” was probably
based on “knowing the situation” (good strategy) because in 2014 the BRICS countries created a new development bank, to express
and enact policies more moderate and acceptable to these middle-level developing nations.
Then, in 1985, Michael Porter wrote “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” which was highly influential in “Globalizing” countries
around the World (including NZ), but it basically prescribed more of the same. In 1990, perhaps seeing a slight shift in the zeitgeist,
Portere wrote an article “strategy and society” and started to discuss the idea that business-as-usual might be able to alleviate global
poverty and lift the bottom (BoP). In this he was joined by Prahalad (at HBS, a consultant) who wrote in the 1990s an influential
article about “value-conscious third world consumers”, “the enterprising poor” and the associated good business and banking
prospects. This fitted in well with Mohammed Yunus’ work at the same time on micro-finance in India and Bangladesh.
The specific idea that ethical businesses might ‘strategically’ lobby for political changes that promote social and environmental justice
(somewhat like VW encouraging unions in areas where it operates) was never mentioned in this “strategy and society” work.
Several other textbooks on “strategy” have emphasized “the strategy process”, that is, how to persuade employees and stakeholders
everywhere to go along with whatever kind of “strategic changes” the CEO and board intends.
So where are we now? I will try to help you develop the skills to answer that in this course (i.e. ethics and strategy courses).