philosophy of business essay

Starting a Business | Tip List

What Is a Business Philosophy + 19 Key Examples

Published July 15, 2021

Published Jul 15, 2021

REVIEWED BY: Rebecca Michael

WRITTEN BY: Lauren Smith-Petta, MBA

This article is part of a larger series on Starting a Business .

Starting A Business?

Get your free ebook.

A business philosophy is a set of guiding principles that a business strives towards to reach its ultimate goal. It encompasses the business’s values, grounding it through ups and downs. It should align with the brand’s personality, mission, and vision. It underscores the actions, decisions, and culture within the business.

You want to make your business philosophy motivational, action-oriented, and applicable across all company activities and departments. To help develop your philosophy, build two foundational pieces of the company mindset— mission statement and vision statement —and work your philosophy from there.

We put together 19 popular business philosophy examples, past and present, to help inspire you to write your own.

19 Examples of Business Philosophies

Let’s look at some Fortune 500 and other well-known companies. Some group their values and call it philosophy, while others frame their philosophy in terms of a Mission Statement, Values Statement, Code of Conduct, or Code of Ethics. Here are some great examples of strong, guiding philosophies to influence and inspire your own.

1. AT&T — Creating Connection

The largest communications company in the world bundled their many telecommunications services—cellular and web connectivity, entertainment, and premium content, for example—into a larger, crystallizing concept that we can all understand and relate to: connection.

It’s easy to write off some services as strictly utilitarian, but strong leaders are able to reframe a company and its services into something bigger, more human, and more meaningful. Everything AT&T does should, theoretically, tie back to connecting people with each other, helping them thrive, and helping them connect with stories and experiences that matter. This unifying vision can completely alter the mood and culture of the workplace when employees are inspired to accomplish something so powerful for humankind, and the philosophy guides that.

2. Google — 10 Things We Know to Be True

• Focus on the user and all else will follow.
• It’s best to do one thing really, really well.
• Fast is better than slow.
• Democracy on the web works.
• You don’t need to be at your desk to need an answer.
• You can make money without doing evil.
• There’s always more information out there.
• The need for information crosses all borders.
• You can be serious without a suit.
• Great just isn’t good enough.

There are a lot of components to dissect in Google’s “10 Things” philosophy. But the thrust of the entire bit is making room for employees to explore, experiment, and succeed. It’s a very human-centric company with an employee-focused culture, trailblazing a creative, innovative, and play-focused work environment. It was ranked #1 for best global workplace culture by Comparably in April 2021.

3. Chevron — Putting People First

“Chevron has always put people at the center of the energy conversation. Because we understand that the well-being of people everywhere depends on energy. Energy that is affordable, reliable and ever-cleaner.”

Also known as “The Chevron Way,” the putting people first philosophy is one you’ll see repeated throughout this list. It took a long time for companies to catch on that employees and customers should be the heart of the business, and this adaptation has proved beneficial for many large, otherwise disconnected companies. Since 1906, Chevron’s parent companies like Standard Oil Company have enacted the The Chevron Way philosophy by putting people first in charity, in operations, and in customer service.

4. Walgreens — Collaboration and Passion

“We cultivate an open and entrepreneurial mindset in all that we do. We work collaboratively with each other and our partners to win together. We work with rigor, simplicity and agility to deliver exceptional results. Propelling our company and the industry forward takes passion and expertise.”

Another multifaceted philosophy, this set of values is centered around collaboration and passion with the straightforward, general purpose of “helping people across the world lead happier and healthier lives.” Objectively, this is true of any drugstore chain, but Walgreens strives to differentiate by focusing on Trust, Care, Inclusion, Innovation, Partnership, and Dedication.

5. Verizon — Total Accountability

“Total accountability of satisfying customers.”

Sweet and simple can work, and Verizon sets aside its products and service offerings in favor of emphasizing the philosophy behind delivering those products and services: total accountability. If every company stuck to this philosophy, it certainly wouldn’t be all bad. Regardless of the product or service in question, Verizon sticks to the customer-centered philosophy of customer satisfaction at any cost.

6. Bank of America — Discipline, Empathy, and Understanding

Here we have another customer-focused philosophy. Not only is Bank of America focused on satisfying the customer, but it establishes how it strives to satisfy the customer: with discipline, empathy and understanding. But notice that the philosophy doesn’t stray far from the ultimate goal of any financial institution, which is to satisfy the bottom line and those ever-present shareholders.

7. FedEx — People-Service-Profit

“The People-Service-Profit philosophy (P-S-P) is based on the belief that by creating a positive working environment for employees, they will provide better service quality to customers, which would then lead to customers using FedEx products and services.”

Having invented a catchy and memorable acronym for its business philosophy, FedEx’s operations are balanced on a trifecta of People, Service, and Profit. Interestingly enough, the three items in the balance are interrelated and not independent of one another. In fact, FedEx’s philosophy is that by fostering an exemplary working environment, employees will deliver a superior service, which will then result in comfortable profit for the organization. Instead of focusing on money first, FedEx purports to prioritize employee satisfaction, assuming the rest will come. So far, this philosophy appears to be working.

8. Walt Disney — Culture of Care

“If we take care of our guests and our cast members, the rest takes care of itself.”

The quote above from Walt Disney himself is a perfect segue from FedEx’s P-S-P philosophy. The entertainment company’s founder promoted a culture of care that emphasized human-centered care, assuming the rest (profit, operational success, growth) would take care of itself. This trend is palpable today as companies are realizing the value of a philosophy focused on people nurturing, rather than profit jockeying. These companies make the Fortune 500 list for a reason.

9. HP — The HP Way

“We have trust and respect for individuals. We focus on a high level of achievement and contribution. We conduct our business with uncompromising integrity. We achieve our common objectives through teamwork. We encourage flexibility and innovation.”

Another original company philosophy that started with the founders , “The HP Way” emphasized not what the company does or why, but how —with uncompromising integrity, respect, and trust, as well as flexibility and innovation. This is one of the few business philosophies discussed here that even mentions teamwork and the nurturing of team and collective successes rather than individual and company successes. In a highly independent society , it’s interesting that so few companies mention the importance of teamwork and team success to the overall achievement of the organization.

10. Delta — Rules of the Road

“Delta has strong core values of honesty, integrity, respect, perseverance, and servant leadership. Our Rules of the Road define who we are and provide a solid foundation for Delta’s culture.”

Delta’s “Rules of the Road” are another example of a company wrapping its business philosophy around a catchy tie-in to its service offering. Although Delta flies through the skies and not along roads, its travel-themed business philosophy makes it more memorable and relatable to both internal and external stakeholders.

11. Nike — Focus on Innovation

(Source: Fibre2Fashion)

Read through Nike’s “About” page on its website and you’ll likely notice an oft-repeated word: innovation. Innovation is proudly woven into Nike’s DNA. So much, in fact, that they have taken to calling themselves a tech company . It’s hard to argue with this assertion, when Nike has pioneered true technology in footwear, including the Nike Flywire support system, Lunarlite foam cushioning, Hyperdunk basketball shoes, Free footwear, and the new Trainer 1 shoe. This is a clear example of a company truly living its business philosophy.

12. Publix — Lessons from the Founder

The Publix philosophy is a multipart, values-based philosophy sustained from the original founder George Jenkins circa the 1930s. Publix has a lot invested in its business philosophy; there’s a large portion of the corporate website dedicated to its business philosophy, founding, and history, including a series of videos explaining and exploring each individual value the company was built upon. If you’re working on building your own business philosophy, consider watching this series of two-minute videos, which are a nice representation of how the company continues to strive to deliver on each value in its day-to-day operations.

13. 3M — More Focus on Innovation

“3M’s management philosophy involves three main points: innovation, diversification and support for employees.”

That’s right, as described by Panmore Institute , 3M is another company with an innovation-focused philosophy. There must be something in the water among Fortune 500 companies that make innovation a driving force behind their successes. 3M is a good example of combining two common themes in this list: focus on people and focus on innovation. Its short and sweet business philosophy emphasizes the importance of diversified and supported employees and the nurturing of innovation.

14. Starbucks — Employee First Philosophy

“We believe in hiring exceptional people who are willing to work for excellent results. In exchange, we are committed to the development of our good people by identifying, cultivating, training, rewarding and promoting those individuals who are committed to moving our company forward.”

Brand Autopsy explored Starbucks’ Employee First Philosophy, which actually came from a 1986 memo from Il Giornale Coffee Company (the company that purchased Starbucks in 1987). Even then, former CEO Howard Schultz preached the importance of Steve Job’s subsequent management philosophy of “I hire people smarter than me and get out of the way.” Nurturing the human resources behind the product is a philosophy older than Starbucks itself, and one that has only recently begun to catch on elsewhere.

15. TOMS — One-for-One

“For every purchased pair of shoes another pair would be donated to children in need in 60 countries all over the world.”

This philosophy of giving is called the One-for-One philosophy. And it became so much more than a philosophy in the wake of TOMS philanthropic approach; it formed the foundation for a new social enterprise business model. This was a trailblazing concept when TOMS pioneered it in 2006, and countless companies have since incorporated giving into their business models, including Bombas, Warby Parker, and Wildflower & Oak.

16. Lululemon — A Core of Curiosity

Lululemon’s business philosophy offers a refreshing new concept among its peers: curiosity. However, Lululemon does insert the common theme of innovation into its approach. The company’s overall mission, it seems, is to utilize its product offering to “elevate the world” with better, more functional clothing. It may be a bit of a stretch, but this yoga-focused clothing line is obviously on to something nonetheless.

17. Burt’s Bees — Body First

“What you put on your body should be made from the best nature has to offer.”

The Burt’s Bees business philosophy, as reported by All Good Tales , clearly ties into what it sells and how it’s used. It’s actually a pretty straightforward philosophy of creating a quality, natural product to nurture the customer’s skin through a variety of products. Burt’s Bees even offers pet products like shampoos and conditioners, a product category also supported by this broad philosophy.

18. Clif Bar — Aspirational

“Sustaining our People – Sustaining our Communities – Sustaining the Planet – Sustaining our Brands – Sustaining our Business.”

Clif Bar is a natural, holistic, journey-focused product company. Its business philosophy aligns pretty well with its brand, identity, and culture — one of a long-term, aspirational journey that has no end and centers around the spokes of a bike wheel. This page of the Clif Bar website is another nice example of how a business philosophy is built around the company brand and vice versa. The succinct explanation of the business philosophy not only addresses the company’s Five Aspirations, but includes an illustration and an annual report that helps crystallize the actual application of a business philosophy not as a destination, but as a journey.

19. Atlassian — 5 Constant Values

Atlassian’s may be a good business philosophy to end on. Before introducing the values on the website, the company offers a precursor: “As our company continues to evolve and grow, these five values remain constant. They guide what we do, why we create, and who we hire.” This is a perfect example of why a company should bother with a business philosophy, and what it should be designed to do. A business philosophy should guide what a company does, why they do it, and who they hire, and remain constant over the course of its lifecycle. The Atlassian values are straightforward, but the explanation of why they exist is what makes this philosophy so impactful.

Bottom Line: Practice What You Preach

Creating a business philosophy is all well and good. But the point isn’t just to have a static, decorative philosophy to put on the shelf. The philosophy should be action-oriented and guide the conscience of the business, regardless of format or length.

A strong business philosophy will ensure that your business is always grounded in its founding mission, vision, and values; it serves as the North Star for the business in good times and bad. Applying that philosophy to your company culture, marketing and branding, and business operations and practices is how your business philosophy will produce fruit and keep the company, employees, and moral compass centered.

You may also like …

How to Start a Business What is Company Culture

About the Author

Find Lauren On LinkedIn

Lauren Smith-Petta, MBA

Lauren is an expert at Fit Small Business in everything about starting a business. For more than 10 years, she’s taught courses to thousands of grad students and entrepreneurs. Lauren's also coached hundreds of new business owners on formations, SMB software, and how to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Lauren writes business plans and articles, designs training course work, conducts in-depth market research, and provides general strategic direction, coaching, and mentoring for entrepreneurs from a wide range of industries and backgrounds.

Join Fit Small Business

Sign up to receive more well-researched small business articles and topics in your inbox, personalized for you. Select the newsletters you’re interested in below.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Philosophical Approaches to Work and Labor

Work is a subject with a long philosophical pedigree. Some of the most influential philosophical systems devote considerable attention to questions concerning who should work, how they should work, and why. For example, in the ideally just city outlined in the Republic , Plato proposed a system of labor specialization, according to which individuals are assigned to one of three economic strata, based on their inborn abilities: the laboring or mercantile class, a class of auxiliaries charged with keeping the peace and defending the city, or the ruling class of ‘philosopher-kings’. Such a division of labor, Plato argued, will ensure that the tasks essential to the city’s flourishing will be performed by those most capable of performing them.

In proposing that a just society must concern itself with how work is performed and by whom, Plato acknowledged the centrality of work to social and personal life. Indeed, most adults spend a significant time engaged in work, and many contemporary societies are arguably “employment-centred” (Gorz 2010). In such societies, work is the primary source of income and is ‘normative’ in the sociological sense, i.e., work is expected to be a central feature of day-to-day life, at least for adults.

Arguably then, no phenomenon exerts a greater influence on the quality and conditions of human life than work. Work thus deserves the same level of philosophical scrutiny as other phenomena central to economic activity (for example, markets or property) or collective life (the family, for instance).

The history of philosophy contains an array of divergent perspectives concerning the place of work in human life (Applebaum 1992, Schaff 2001, Budd 2011, Lis and Soly 2012, Komlosy 2018). Traditional Confucian thought, for instance, embraces hard work, perseverance, the maintenance of professional relations, and identification with organizational values. The ancient Mediterranean tradition, exemplified by Plato and Aristotle, admired craft and knowledge-driven productive activity while also espousing the necessity of leisure and freedom for a virtuous life. The Christian tradition contains several different views of work, including that work is toil for human sin, that work should be a calling or vocation by which one glorifies God or carries out God’s will, and that work is an arena in which to manifest one’s status as elect in the eyes of God (the ‘Protestant work ethic’). The onset of the Industrial Revolution and the adverse working conditions of industrial labor sparked renewed philosophical interest in work, most prominently in Marxist critiques of work and labor that predict the alienation of workers under modern capitalism and the emergence of a classless society in which work is minimized or equitably distributed.

Philosophical attention to work and labor seems to increase when work arrangements or values appear to be in flux. For example, recent years have witnessed an increase in philosophical research on work, driven at least in part by the perception that is in ‘crisis’: Economic inequality in employment-centred societies continues to rise, technological automation seems poised to eliminate jobs and to augur an era of persistent high unemployment, and dissatisfaction about the quality or meaningfulness of work in present day jobs appears to be increasing (Schwartz 2015, Livingston 2016, Graeber 2018, Danaher 2019). Many scholars now openly question whether work should be treated as a ‘given’ in modern societies (Weeks 2011).

This entry will attempt to bring systematicity to the extant philosophical literature on work by examining the central conceptual, ethical, and political questions in the philosophy of work and labor (Appiah 2021).

1. Conceptual Distinctions: Work, Labor, Employment, Leisure

2.1 the goods of work, 2.2 opposition to work and work-centred culture, 3.1 distributive justice, 3.2 contributive and productive justice, 3.3 equality and workplace governance, 3.4 gender, care, and emotional labor, 4. work and its future, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries.

It is not difficult to enumerate examples of work. Hence, Samuel Clark:

by work I mean the familiar things we do in fields, factories, offices, schools, shops, building sites, call centres, homes, and so on, to make a life and a living. Examples of work in our commercial society include driving a taxi, selling washing machines, managing a group of software developers, running a till in a supermarket, attaching screens to smartphones on an assembly line, fielding customer complaints in a call centre, and teaching in a school (Clark 2017: 62).

Some contemporary commentators have observed that human life is increasingly understood in work-like terms: parenthood is often described as a job, those with romantic difficulties are invited to ‘work on’ their relationships, those suffering from the deaths of others are advised to undertake ‘grief work,’ and what was once exercise is now ‘working out’ (Malesic 2017). The diversity of undertakings we designate as ‘work’, and the apparent dissimilarities among them, have led some philosophers to conclude that work resists any definition (Muirhead 2007: 4, Svendsen 2015) or is at best a loose concept in which different instances of work share a ‘family resemblance’ (Pence 2001: 96–97).

The porousness of the notion of work notwithstanding, some progress in defining work seems possible by first considering the variety of ways in which work is organized. For one, although many contemporary discussions of work focus primarily on employment , not all work takes the form of employment. It is therefore important not to assimilate work to employment, because not every philosophically interesting claim that is true of employment is true of work as such, and vice versa. In an employment relationship, an individual worker sells their labor to another in exchange for compensation (usually money), with the purchaser of their labor serving as a kind of intermediary between the worker and those who ultimately enjoy the goods that the worker helps to produce (consumers). The intermediary, the employer , typically serves to manage (or appoints those who manage) the hired workers — the employees—, setting most of the terms of what goods are thereby to be produced, how the process of production will be organized, etc. Such an arrangement is what we typically understand as having a job .

But a worker can produce goods without their production being mediated in this way. In some cases, a worker is a proprietor , someone who owns the enterprise as well as participating in the production of the goods produced by that enterprise (for example, a restaurant owner who is also its head chef). This arrangement may also be termed self-employment , and differs from arrangements in which proprietors are not workers in the enterprise but merely capitalize it or invest in it. And some proprietors are also employers, that is, they hire other workers to contribute their labor to the process of production. Arguably, entrepreneurship or self-employment, rather than having a job, has been the predominant form of work throughout human history, and it continues to be prevalent. Over half of all workers are self-employed in parts of the world such as Africa and South Asia, and the number of self-employed individuals has been rising in many regions of the globe (International Labor Organization 2019). In contrast, jobs — more or less permanent employment relationships — are more a byproduct of industrial modernity than we realise (Suzman 2021).

Employees and proprietors are most often in a transactional relationship with consumers; they produce goods that consumers buy using their income. But this need not be the case. Physicians at a ‘free clinic’ are not paid by their patients but by a government agency, charity, etc. Nevertheless, such employees expect to earn income from their work from some source. But some instances of work go unpaid or uncompensated altogether. Slaves work, as do prisoners in some cases, but their work is often not compensated. So too for those who volunteer for charities or who provide unpaid care work , attending to the needs of children, the aged, or the ill.

Thus, work need not involve working for others, nor need it be materially compensated. These observations are useful inasmuch as they indicate that certain conditions we might presume to be essential to work (being employed, being monetarily compensated) are not in fact essential to it. Still, these observations only inform as to what work is not. Can we say more exactly what work is ?

Part of the difficulty in defining work is that whether a person’s actions constitute work seems to depend both on how her actions shape the world as well on the person’s attitudes concerning those actions. On the one hand, the activity of work is causal in that it modifies the world in some non-accidental way. As Bertrand Russell (1932) remarked, “work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so.” But work involves altering the world in presumptively worthwhile ways. In this respect, work is closely tied to the production of what Raymond Geuss (2021:5) has called ‘objective’ value, value residing in “external” products that can be “measured and valued independently of anything one might know about the process through which that product came to be or the people who made it.” By working, we generate goods (material objects but also experiences, states of mind, etc.) that others can value and enjoy in their own right. In most cases of work (for example, when employed), a person is compensated not for the performance of labor as such but because their labor contributes to the production of goods that have such ‘objective’ value. Note, however, that although work involves producing what others can enjoy or consume, sometimes the objective value resulting from work is not in fact enjoyed by others or by anyone at all. A self-sufficient farmer works by producing food solely for their own use, in which case the worker (rather than others) ends up consuming the objective value of their work. Likewise, the farmer who works to produce vegetables for market that ultimately go unsold has produced something whose objective value goes unconsumed.

Geuss has suggested a further characteristic of work, that it is “necessary” for individuals and for “societies as a whole” (2021:18). Given current and historical patterns of human life, work has been necessary to meet human needs. However, if some prognostications about automation and artificial intelligence prove true (see section 4 on ‘The Future of Work’), then the scarcity that has defined the human condition up to now may be eliminated, obviating the necessity of work at both the individual and societal level. Moreover, as Geuss observes, some work aims to produce goods that answer to human wants rather than human needs or necessities (that is, to produce luxuries), and some individuals manage to escape the necessity of work thanks to their antecedent wealth.

Still, work appears to have as one of its essential features that it be an activity that increases the objective (or perhaps intersubjective) value in the world. Some human activities are therefore arguably not work because they generate value for the actor instead of for others. For instance, work stands in contrast to leisure . Leisure is not simply idleness or the absence of work, nor is it the absence of activity altogether (Pieper 1952, Walzer 1983: 184–87, Adorno 2001, Haney and Kline 2010). When at leisure, individuals engage in activities that produce goods for their own enjoyment largely indifferent to the objective value that these activities might generate for others. The goods resulting from a person’s leisure are bound up with the fact that she generates them through her activity. We cannot hire others to sunbathe for us or enjoy a musical performance for us because the value of such leisure activities is contingent upon our performing the activities. Leisure thus produces subjective value that we ‘make’ for ourselves, value that (unlike the objective value generated from work) cannot be transferred to or exchanged with others. It might also be possible to create the objective value associated with working despite being at leisure. A professional athlete, for instance, might be motivated to play her sport as a form of leisure but produce (and be monetarily compensated for the production of) objective value for others (spectators who enjoy the sport). Perhaps such examples are instances of work and leisure or working by way of leisure.

Some accounts of work emphasize not the nature of the value work produces but the individual’s attitudes concerning work. For instance, many definitions of work emphasize that work is experienced as exertion or strain (Budd 2011:2, Veltman 2016:24–25, Geuss 2021: 9–13). Work, on this view, is inevitably laborious. No doubt work is often strenuous. But defining work in this way seems to rule out work that is sufficiently pleasurable to the worker as to hardly feel like a burden. An actor may so enjoy performing that it hardly feels like a strain at all. Nevertheless, the performance is work inasmuch as the actor must deliberately orient their activities to realize the objective value the performance may have for others. Her acting will not succeed in producing this objective value unless she is guided by a concern to produce the value by recalling and delivering her lines, etc. In fact, the actor may find performing pleasurable rather than a burden because she takes great satisfaction in producing this objective value for others. Other work involves little exertion of strain because it is nearly entirely passive; those who are paid subjects in medical research are compensated less for their active contribution to the research effort but simply “to endure” the investigative process and submit to the wills of others (Malmqvist 2019). Still, the research subject must also be deliberate in their participation, making sure to abide by protocols that ensure the validity of the research. Examples such as these suggest that a neglected dimension of work is that, in working, we are paradigmatically guided by the wills of others, for we are aiming in our work activities to generate goods that others could enjoy.

2. The Value of Work

The proposed definition of work as the deliberate attempt to produce goods that others can enjoy or consume indicates where work’s value to those besides the worker resides. And the value that work has to others need not be narrowly defined in terms of specific individuals enjoying or consuming the goods we produce. Within some religious traditions, work is way to serve God and or one’s community.

But these considerations do not shed much light on the first-personal value of work: What value does one’s work have to workers? How do we benefit when we produce goods that others could enjoy?

On perhaps the narrowest conception of work’s value, it only has exchange value. On this conception, work’s value is measured purely in terms of the material goods it generates for the worker, either in monetary terms or in terms of work’s products (growing one’s own vegetables, for instance). To view work as having exchange value is to see its value as wholly extrinsic; there is no value to work as such, only value to be gained from what one’s work concretely produces. If work only has exchange value, then work is solely a cost or a burden, never worth doing for its own sake. Echoing the Biblical tale of humanity’s fall, this conception of work’s value casts it as a curse foisted upon us due to human limitations or inadequacies.

But work is often valued for other reasons. One powerful bit of evidence in favour of work’s being valued for reasons unrelated to its exchange value comes from studies of (involuntary) unemployment. Unemployment usually adverse economic effects on workers, inasmuch as it deprives them, at least temporarily, of income. But prolonged unemployment also has measurable negative effects on individuals’ health, both physical and mental (Calvo et al 2015, Margerison-Zilko et al. 2016, Helliwell et al 2017), as well as being among the most stressful of live events. (Holmes and Rahe 1967). That being deprived of work is evidently so detrimental to individual well-being indicates that work matters for many beyond a paycheck.

Many of the goods of work are linked to the fact that work is nearly always a social endeavour. As Cynthia Estlund (2003:7) observes, “the workplace is the single most important site of cooperative interaction and sociability among adult citizens outside the family.” Individuals thus seek out many social goods through work. Gheaus and Herzog (2016) propose that in addition to providing us wages, work fulfills various social roles. For example, work is a primary means by which individuals can achieve a sense of community. In working with others, we can establish bonds that contribute to our sense of belonging and that enable us to contribute to a distinctive workplace culture. In a similar vein, communitarian theorists often argue that work, by embedding us in shared practices or traditions, is essential to social life (Walzer 1983, Breen 2007). MacIntyre (1984:187) defines a practice as a “any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative activity through which goods internal to that form of activity are realised in the course of trying to achieve those standards of excellence which are appropriate to, and partially definitive of, that form of activity.” Those working together in (say) a bakery are cooperating to produce the goods internal to that activity (bread), with the result that they extend their capacities and enrich their appreciation of the goods they cooperatively produce.

Many philosophers have closely linked work’s value to different aspects of human rationality. For instance, philosophers inspired by thinkers such as Aristotle have underscored work’s ability to allow us to perfect ourselves by developing and exercising our rational potential in worthwhile ways. On this picture, work is a central arena for the realization of our natures across our lifetimes (Clark 2017). Marxists typically agree that work allows us to develop and exercise our rational powers, but add that work’s value also resides in how it enables us to make those powers visible by imparting human form to a natural world that would otherwise remain alien to us. Hence, for Marxists, work is an expression of our active nature, a pathway to self-realization inasmuch as work creates products that “objectify” the human will. Work thus represents a counterweight to the passive consumption characteristic of modern societies (Elster 1989, Sayers 2005).

Another value associated with work is meaningfulness . Philosophical inquiry into meaningful work often parallels philosophical inquiry into the meaning of life . One central dispute about meaningful work is whether it is fundamentally subjective (a matter of how a worker feels about her work), fundamentally objective (a matter of the qualities of one’s work or of the products one makes), or both (Yeoman 2014, Michaelson 2021). Some accounts of meaningful work are broadly Kantian, seeing meaningful work as grounded in the value of autonomy (Schwartz 1982, Bowie 1998, Roessler 2012). Such accounts judge work as meaningful to the extent that it is freely entered into, affords workers opportunities to exercise their own independent judgment, and allows them to pursue ends of their own that are to some extent distinct from the ends mandated by their employers. Other accounts locate the meaningfulness of work in its potential to enhance our capabilities, to manifest virtues such as pride or self-discipline, or to emotionally engage our sense of purpose (Beadle and Knight 2012, Svendsen 2015, Yeoman 2014, Veltman 2016).

At the same time, some argue that meaningful work is in turn a precondition of other important goods. John Rawls, for example, proposed that a lack of opportunity for meaningful work undermines self-respect, where self-respect is the belief that our plan for our lives is both worth pursuing and attainable through our intentional efforts. Meaningful work, as Rawls understood it, involves enjoying the exercise of our capacities, particularly our more complex capacities. Given that meaningful work is a “social basis” for self-respect, a just and stable society may have to offer meaningful work by serving as an “employer of last resort” if such work is otherwise unavailable (Rawls 1996, Moriarty 2009).

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest in the dignity of work. Christian thought, and Catholicism in particular (John Paul II 1981), has long advocated that work manifests the dignity inherent in human beings. The claim that “all work has dignity,” regardless of its nature or of how much social esteem it enjoys, rests on egalitarian ideals about labor, ideals articulated by Black American thinkers such as Booker T. Washington and Martin Luther King, Jr. As Washington expressed it, “there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem” (Washington 1901:220). At the same time however, this tradition has also deployed the notion of dignity as a critical concept, to highlight labor injustice and to decry exploitative forms of work (including slavery) that fail to serve or uplift humanity (Washington 1901: 148, King 2011: 171–72, Veltman 2016: 29–31). This position thus seems to assert that work as such has dignity but that work can also vary in its dignity depending on workers’ economic conditions or social status. More recent philosophical scholarship on the dignity of work has investigated its relationship to human rights. For instance, Paolo Gilabert (2018) distinguishes between dignity as a status and dignity as a condition. Status dignity is grounded in certain valuable capacities that individuals have, capacities that in turn that require workers be treated with respect and concern. Condition dignity is achieved when individuals are treated in accordance with the ‘dignitarian’ norms mandated by such respect or concern. Gilabert’s distinction may allow the affirmation both of the inherent dignity of work, inasmuch as work gives evidence of human capacities worthy of respect, and of the claim that failing to provide decent working conditions is at odds with (but does not undermine) dignity.

That work is a potential source of income, social and personal goods, meaning, or dignity, does not entail that work in fact provides these goods or that work is good for us on balance . Since the Industrial Revolution in particular, many philosophers and social theorists have been sceptical about the value of work and of the work-centred cultures typical of contemporary affluent societies (Deranty 2015).

Crucially, much of the scepticism surrounding the value of work is not scepticism about the value of work per se but scepticism about the value of work in present day social conditions or scepticism about the veneration of work found in the “Protestant work ethic” (Weber 1904–05) or in work-centred societies. Sceptics about work-centred culture question whether popular enthusiasm for work is rational or well-informed or whether it gives adequate credence to alternatives to work-centred culture (Cholbi 2018b, Sage 2019). Indeed, many critics of contemporary work arrangements essentially argue that good or desirable work is possible but rarer than we suppose. In “Useful Work versus Useful Toil,” (1884), for example, the socialist activist William Morris rejects “the creed of modern morality that all labor is good in itself” and argues for a distinction between work that is “a blessing, a lightening of life” and work that is “a mere curse, a burden to life,” offering us no hope of rest, no hope of producing anything genuinely useful, and no hope of pleasure in its performance. Similarly, the anarchist Bob Black opens his essay “The Abolition of Work” (1985) as follows:

No one should ever work. Work is the source of nearly all the misery in the world. Almost any evil you’d care to name comes from working or from living in a world designed for work. In order to stop suffering, we have to stop working.

But Black proceeds to define work as “forced labor, that is, compulsory production.” His ‘abolition’ of work is thus compatible with individuals voluntarily engaging in economically productive activities, which (as we have seen) can resemble work in its essentials.

Danaher (2019:54) allows that work can contribute to human well-being, but as presently organized, the world of work is “structurally bad” and unlikely to change in these respects:

The labor market in most developed countries has settled into an equilibrium pattern that makes work very bad for many people, that is getting worse as a result of technical and institutional changes, and that is very difficult to reform or improve in such a way as to remove its bad-making properties.

Thus, even those espousing stridently ‘anti-work’ positions usually target not work as such, but work as it has been organized or understood in the contemporary world. Indeed, much of their ire is directed at current conditions of employment, which (as noted earlier) is only one prominent species work can take.

The sceptical case against work or work culture has many dimensions, but can be fruitfully analysed as having four strands:

Goods not realized: While work can be a source of various goods, many people’s working lives fail to provide them these goods. Popular enthusiasm for work thus seems misplaced, according to work sceptics, for “the moral sanctity of work is painfully out of step with the way that a vast proportion of people actually experience their jobs” (Frayne 2015: 62–63).

With respect to the exchange value of work, work is often poorly compensated or insecure. Contemporary economies are increasingly characterized by a ‘hollowing out’ of middle class labor, wherein wages continue to increase for those at the upper end of the wage scale, wages stagnate at the bottom end of the scale, and the number of workers in the middle strata shrinks. This has resulted in the emergence of a class of ‘working poor,’ individuals who lack sufficient income to pay for basic needs such as housing or food despite being employed.

Many of the other potential goods of work are enjoyed by some workers, but many receive little social recognition or do not achieve a greater sense of community through their work. A good deal of socially valuable or ‘essential’ work is largely invisible to its beneficiaries. Many jobs are dull or unchallenging, contributing little to the development or exercise of our more sophisticated human capacities. It is difficult to envision, for instance, that toll booth workers find their jobs or stimulating or challenging (aside from testing their ability to withstand repetition or boredom).

Modern work has been oriented around the division of labor , i.e., the increasing separation of productive processes into ever smaller tasks. (The factory assembly line provides the model here.) The division of labor results in workers becoming hyper-specialists, who repetitively perform narrow or simple tasks. Although the division of labor increases overall economic productivity, critics such as the classical economist Adam Smith worried that it eventually makes workers “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become.” (Smith 1776 [1976]: V.1.178) As to meaning or dignity, a wide swath of human work neither engages workers nor allows them to exercise their autonomous judgment, and many work in oppressive or exploitative conditions seemingly at odds with the dignity of the work they perform.

Internal tensions among work goods: A characteristic of work-centred societies is that their members look to work to provide them with many different goods. But work (and employment in particular) may be ill-suited to provide this package of goods, i.e., work may be capable of providing some of these goods but only at the expense of others. For instance, many of the professions that individuals view as offering the greatest opportunities for meaningful work (such as education, counseling, or care for the sick, young, or disabled) are among the poorest paid professions. Contemporary labor markets thus seem to offer a workers the opportunity for an inadequate income or meaningful work, but rarely both. The psychologist Barry Schwartz argues (2015) that our non-material motivations for work, such as seeking meaningfulness, social engagement, and opportunities for autonomy, are in motivational competition with the monetary incentives associated with work. The monetary incentives distort workplace attitudes and behaviours so that the non-material goods we seek in work are crowded out by a focus on productivity and the economic goods work makes available. That labor markets are competitive may also undermine the social benefits of work, for even those who succeed in the labor market do so by being ‘pitted against’ other workers in ways that reduce solidarity among them, turning fellow citizens into rivals who are indifferent (or even hostile to) each other’s interests (Hussain 2020).

Unrecognized bads or costs: Sceptics also point to ‘bads’ or costs associated with work that tend to go unrecognized. The most obvious of these is the opportunity costs resulting from the amount of time spent working. Typically, full-time workers spend 1,500–2,500 hours per year on the job, equivalent to around nine to fifteen weeks annually. These are hours that, were they not allocated to working, could be devoted to leisure, sleep, exercise, family life, civic and community engagement, and so on (Rose 2016). These hours do not include the considerable amount of time that workers expend on training or educating themselves for work or on commuting to and from workplaces. Nor does it include the hours that many salaried workers are expected to be ‘connected’ or ‘on call’ by their employers. Formal employment also tends to preclude workers from work other than that performed for their employers, with the result that workers often end up paying other workers for that labor. Such costs include the hiring of housekeepers, child care providers, maintenance experts and landscapers, etc. And while unemployment seems to have adverse effects on our physical and mental well-being, working is not free of adverse health effects either, including stress, emotional frustration, and physical ailments from repetitive work tasks or ergonomic deficiencies in workplace design.

Sceptics also argue that when work fails to deliver certain kinds of goods, workers suffer certain psychological bads. Three such classes of bads merit particular attention:

• Marx’s critique of work under capitalism rests on the notion that work often lacks goods whose absence gives rise to the further bad of alienation . Marx (1844) proposed that work under capitalism alienates workers from what they produce, inasmuch as workers have little if any say over what is produced and how; from the act of work itself, inasmuch as workers are compelled by economic necessity to work and so do not take intrinsic satisfaction in working; from their own human nature or “species-essence,” inasmuch as workers do not witness their own agency or intentions “objectified” in the products of their work; and from other workers, inasmuch as capitalism treats workers as interchangeable inputs of production and pits worker against worker. In terms of our earlier enumeration of the goods of work, Marx’s appeal to alienation suggests that the absence of these goods is not merely a lack or a deprivation but is a positive bad of work in its own right (Elster 1989, Brudney 1998, Kandiyali 2020).
• Many work sceptics emphasize how work may distort our priorities or values. The value of work, in their eyes, has come to be an unquestioned ethical dogma. “The economists and the moralists have cast a sacred halo over work,” according to Paul LaFargue (1883), instilling us in the “delusion” of the “love of work.” (See also Frayne 2015.) Bertrand Russell (1932) argued that the veneration of work has eroded our appreciation of the value of leisure and idleness. (See also O’Connor 2018.) Economists such as Keynes (1930) observed that the dramatic increases in economic productivity have often not led to reductions in work time, a development he attributes to a work ethic that stymies our capacity to enjoy leisure and abundance.
• The social cachet of work may end up warping our moral relationship to ourselves, treating ourselves not as intrinsically valuable but as mere instruments of production. Hannah Arendt (1958) argued that conceiving of ourselves primarily as workers leads to a sort of instrumental stance on ourselves and other human agents, in which we come to view ourselves purely as resources for production or sites of consumption. More recent critics have proposed that work-centred cultures encourage us to view the self as a commodity to be ‘branded’ or marketed to prospective employers (Davis 2003).

Lastly, work can have costs to others besides workers themselves. The aforementioned opportunity costs deriving from time devoted to work may worsen workers’ relationships with others or bar their communities from making use of those workers’ skills for socially worthwhile purposes. Some work arguably makes workers complicit in harmful or unjust practices, such as the sale of tobacco or unhealthy foods. Workers may also impose negative externalities through their work. For example, working outside the home typically results in a greater environmental impact, including contributions to the carbon outputs responsible for global climate change (James 2018).

Alternatives sources of work-related goods: A last thread in ‘anti-work’ thinking is that, even to the degree that work is good, it is not obviously uniquely situated to provide the goods it provides. A sense of social recognition or identity can be rooted in domains of human life besides employment, such as volunteer work, family life, religion, or friendship. “Ludic” activities, i.e., play, can offer opportunities to exercise and hone our rational capacities (Black 1985, Nguyen 2019). Some have proposed that virtual reality will provide us simulacra of work-like activities that could thereby substitute for work itself. Contrary to Gheaus and Herzog (2016) then, work may not be a “a privileged context” for realizing the goods we associate with work.

Anti-work theorists typically call for work to be re-valued such that individuals will ‘work to live, not live to work,’ as well as policies (such as reductions in the mandated weekly working time) to minimize the influence of work on our quality of life. That work is both unavoidable and seemingly necessary but frustrating might suggest the wisdom of an ironic stance toward work (de Botton 2010).

3. Justice and the Politics of Work

Human societies can be seen as cooperative endeavours aimed at securing their members’ interests. If so, then social justice will be centrally concerned with those practices within societies by which individuals cooperate to produce goods for one another’s use. Work is therefore a central concern of social justice. Questions of work and justice arise both with respect to the design of institutions and the choices of individuals.

Most accounts of justice assume that a large number of individuals within a given society will engage in paid work. A crucial moral question, then, is what individuals are entitled to with respect to both the benefits and the harms of work. How, in other words, are the goods and bads of work justly distributed?

One possible answer to this question is that each worker is entitled to whatever benefits their talents and abilities enable them to secure in a labor market governed purely by supply and demand. This answer entails that those whose talents or abilities are in high demand and/or short supply will command greater benefits from prospective employers than those whose talents or abilities are in low demand and/or generously supplied (Boatright 2010). (This same logic would apply to those who use their labor to produce goods for sale rather than those in employment arrangements.)

After the early decades of the twentieth century, many nations implemented policies at odds with this ‘pure market’ vision of work and labor. Most have wage regulations, for example, mandating a minimum level of pay. But the justice of minimum levels of pay is disputed, with some theorists arguing that disallowing a person to sell her labor at a price she judges adequate infringes on her personal liberty. According to many libertarian thinkers, our labor is an exercise of our bodies or our talents, each of which we own in a way akin to our ownership of private property. To disallow someone the right to sell their labor even at a very low cost thus infringes on their rights of self-ownership. (Mack 2002) The fairness of wage differentials is also disputed. Should wages track the economic value of a worker’s contributions or their effort, or are wages primarily an incentive to encourage worker commitment and motivation? (Heath 2018, Moriarty 2020) Some theorists have proposed that inequalities in pay ought to be eliminated altogether (Örtenblad 2021), while some supporters of an unconditional basic income, in which individuals receive regular payments regardless of their working status, see it an alternative way to ensure a sufficient minimum income, one immune to workers becoming unemployed (van Parijs and Vanderbroght 2017).

Distributive justice also pertains to various protections against harms or wrongs associated with work. Again, most societies place legal limitations on various conditions of work. These include protections against overwork via limitations on the length of the workday or workweek; bans on discrimination in hiring or promotion based on race, gender, religion, or other social categories; assurances that workplace risks and dangers are mitigated; and, at a wider societal level, prohibitions aimed at ensuring that individuals lives are not dominated by work at particular life stages (bans on child labor and provisions to make retirement possible). One important moral question about these protections is whether workers should have the right to bargain away some of these protections either for increased pay (as when employees negotiate higher wages in exchange for performing more dangerous jobs) or for enhancements in other protections.

The questions of distributive justice addressed in the previous section concern what goods workers receive from work if they work at all. But critical questions about justice also pertain to whether workers are entitled to work and whether they are obligated to do so. Work thus raises questions of contributive and productive justice respectively.

For one, do workers have a right to work in the first place? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states as much, assuring each individual “the right to work, to free employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.” (United Nations 1948, Article 23) A right to work would presumably be more than a negative liberty, i.e., not simply a right that others not interfere with one’s attempts to work, secure employment, etc., but a claim to be provided work if one wishes (Schaff 2017). The right to work has been defended both for specific populations (such as the disabled; see Kavka 1992) or for the populace writ large (Tcherneva 2020). If there is such a right, it will presumably be because work is an essential (or at least the prevailing) means for the acquisition of vital goods. Elster (1988) proposes a job guarantee on the grounds that work is essential to self-realization. Gomberg (2007) argues that work is a key social good because it is the primary path by which to make a socially validated contribution to one’s wider community, a contribution that can provide us recognition and a sense of meaning. Two crucial questions that arise in connection with the putative right to work are (a) against whom is this right held, i.e., who must provide work if workers have a right to it, or (b) whether work provided so as to honour this right will in fact provide the goods on which the right to work is based (e.g., the work provided under a government-provided job guarantee could prove unfulfilling).

A right to work would mean that any person (or at least any adult) who wished to work would be able to do so. But do individuals have a right not to work, or is work in any sense morally obligatory? The most obvious basis for such an obligation appeals to notions of fair play or reciprocity : Individuals act wrongly when they fail to contribute to social enterprises from which they benefit, and since the productive economy benefits most everyone in a society, individuals have an obligation to contribute to the productive economy by working. (Becker 1980, White 2003) Opponents of this fair play rationale argue that the conditions for just reciprocal relations between societies and particular groups (e.g., the ghetto poor; see Shelby 2012) do not obtain, thereby exempting members of such groups from the obligation to work, or that contemporary economic developments fail to provide the background conditions for the obligation to apply (Cholbi 2018a). Other opponents of an obligation to work argue that it represents a violation of the state’s duty to treat citizens equally; citizens who are compelled to work are made to pursue a conception of the good life with which they may not agree, and a just state should treat citizens as equals by remaining neutral among rival conceptions of the good life (van Parijs 1991, Levine 1995). An obligation to work would in effect amount to the state’s endorsement of the ‘work ethic’ and the rejection of ways of life (e.g., being a beachcomber) that themselves oppose the work ethic. Other opponents of a duty to work argue that requiring individuals to work is likely to stand in the way of self-realization for particular people (Maskivker 2012).

Another possibility is that even if there is not a general obligation to work, we might be subject to limitations on our work-related liberties in order to satisfy demands of distributive justice. Many of the goods provided by a just society, including education and health care, are labor-intensive. But societies often face shortfalls of workers in the very occupations that provide these goods. Some philosophers have argued that the demands of distributive justice may permissibly constrain our work choices, and in fact, may license governments conscripting labor in order to secure workers to provide these goods, on the model of the military draft during wartime. (Fabré 2008, Stanczyk 2012). Similar concerns arise concerning socially necessary but undesirable ‘dirty’ work.(Walzer 1983, Schmode 2019). Conversely, if justice can require individuals to perform certain kinds of work, this might speak against a right to strike (Borman, 2017, Gourevitch 2018), particularly on the part of essential workers (Munoz 2014).

How one’s choice of work contributes to justice and the overall good is a moral question that individuals face as well. Some jobs (hired assassin, for example) seem immoral as such. But to what extent, if any, are we obligated to choose careers or jobs that promote justice or the welfare of others? On the one hand, choice of jobs and careers does not appear exempt from moral considerations, inasmuch as the work one performs affects others and society at large, and given the often dismal state of the world, perhaps we are obligated to choose jobs and careers for moral reasons rather than solely on the basis of self-interest. Norman Care (1984:285) proposes “that in today’s world morality requires that service to others be put before self-realization in the matter of career choice.” In contrast, some philosophers who believe that individuals (and not merely institutions) within a society are subject to demands of justice nevertheless accord individuals discretion in their choices of occupation. G.A. Cohen, for instance, asserts that we should each enjoy a “personal prerogative” that allows us to be something more than an “engine for the welfare of other people” or “slaves to social justice.” (2008:10) We might likewise worry that requiring that our job or career choices be optimal from the standpoint of justice or social welfare is excessively demanding in light of how such choices both reflect and shape our identities (Cholbi 2020).

In recent years, egalitarian philosophers have begun to critique typical workplace arrangements as antagonistic to requirements of equal relations among individuals in society. Particularly influential here is Anderson’s suggestion that many workplaces amount to a form of “private government,” at least as authoritarian as many forms of state government.

Imagine a government that assigns almost everyone a superior whom they must obey. Although superiors give most inferiors a routine to follow, there is no rule of law. Orders may be arbitrary and can change at any time, without prior notice or opportunity to appeal. Superiors are unaccountable to those they order around. They are neither elected nor removable by their inferiors. …The government does not recognize a personal or private sphere or autonomy free from sanction. It may prescribe a dress code and forbid certain hairstyles. Everyone lives under surveillance, to ensure that they are complying with orders. …The economic system of the society run by this government is communist. The government owns all the nonlabor means of production in the society it governs. It organizes production by means of central planning. The form of the government is a dictatorship (Anderson 2017: 37–38).

The ‘society’ Anderson invites us to imagine is of course the contemporary workplace, at least as it stands in the United States and many other nations. Anderson and other relational egalitarians view the relationships defined by the powers that employers usually have over their employees as oppressive and unjust. Workers are subject to employers’ ‘governance,’ but this governance consists in employees being arbitrarily and unaccountably subject to the wills of employers. The relational egalitarian thus concludes that workplaces, as presently constituted, do not involve employees and employers relating as genuine equals. And while employees will generally have the right to exit employment relationships, this may be little protection against oppression if most workplaces are organized in the way Anderson illustrates.

To some degree, the inequalities to which Anderson points are products of labor law and policies specific to different nations. There are, however, ways of altering the relationships between employers and workers so as to potentially prevent or address these (and other) inequalities.

Perhaps the most familiar such method is unionization or collective bargaining. Worker unions amplify the power of individual workers in relation to their employers by compelling employers to negotiate contracts with workers as a body. Unions may organize workers within a particular profession, within many professions, or within a single workplace or firm. Societies vary considerably in the degrees to which their workers are unionized and their labor laws friendly to union formation and power. Unions are presumptively justified on the grounds that workers who consensually form or join unions are exercising their right to freely associate with others with whom they share interests in order to promote those interests (Lindblom 2019), though if union membership is required in order to be employed in a particular workplace or industry, unionization may violate individuals right not to associate with others or to associate with (in this instance, to enter into an employment relationship) any party of their choosing (White 1998).Appealing to “republican liberty,” Mark Reiff (2020) has argued that unions should be viewed as a basic institution of society that protects workers’ liberty from exploitation by employers. On Reiff’s view, unionization should therefore be universal and compulsory .

Other methods for redressing the seemingly unequal and oppressive relations between employers and employees involve breaking the monopoly on decision making that management typically has within a given firm or employment arrangement. Typical workplaces are hierarchical rather than democratic. Many egalitarian critics of work call for the workplace to be more democratized, with workers having a greater say not only concerning their own working conditions but also concerning decisions usually reserved for management. Advocates for workplace democracy often argue that it is likely to be the most effective workplace organization in protecting workers’ interests. (González-Ricoy 2014). Others emphasize that the workplace is a microcosm of larger society and hence serves as a training ground for the development of virtues needed to live in a larger democratic society (Pateman 1970, Estlund 2003). But perhaps the most basic argument for workplace democracy is that firms are analogous to states, and so if the state ought to be governed democratically, so too should firms and other workplaces (Dahl 1986, Mayer 2000, Landemore & Ferreras 2016). Workplace democracy would seem to render the workplace more just inasmuch as it makes workers’ conditions a partial byproduct of their consent and a reflection of their autonomy (Schaff 2012).

Work’s role in justice is further complicated by the fact that work is a highly gendered phenomenon in many societies. For one, women typically perform much of the housekeeping and child care that traditionally have not been recognized with monetary compensation. Within the formal labor market, many societies have a wage gap wherein women are paid less than men for similar work, and there are significant differences in gender representations in different professions (traditionally, women highly represented in fields such as primary school teaching, nursing, and social work, men highly represented in fields such as engineering and finance). Feminist philosophers have detected in these differentials an undervaluation of the kinds of work, particularly care work, that women have often performed (Gurtler and Smith 2005) as well as a blind spot in philosophical theorizing about justice wherein ‘relational’ goods that matter to our life prospects but are usually not provided via market exchange are ignored (Gheaus 2009). One intricate set of issues here is understanding the underlying relations of cause and effect: Are women in societies with sexist norms pushed toward low pay or low prestige jobs because they are women, or are these low pay or low prestige jobs because women tend to perform them (or both)? In a similar vein, we may wonder how norms of gender intersect with the gendered division of labor (whether, for example, the stereotype that women are more eager to care for children feeds the gendered division of labor or whether the gendered division of labor reinforces that stereotype, or both).

The gendered division of labor is open to objections of different kinds: On the one hand, it appears to result in distributions of work-related goods (such as income, free time, etc.) in which women are systematically shortchanged. In addition, the gendered division of labor may be unjust because it contributes to hierarchies between the genders that render them unequal. (Hartley and Watson 2018) Schouten (2019) argues that, although many individuals embrace traditional gender norms and the gendered division of labor these entail, those who instead favour gender-egalitarian ways of life have a reasonable ground to complain when societies create institutions and policies that support expectations — the gendered division of labor chief among these — that serve as impediments to such ways of life. According to Schouten then, a just society will regulate work time, family leave, and dependent care so as to foster gender-egalitarian ways of life and a non-gendered division of labor. (See also Wright and Brighouse 2008, Gheaus 2012.)

A further strand in feminist thought about work arises from Hochschild’s scholarship (2012) on emotional labor . Some work involves intensive monitoring or management of one’s own emotions in order to engage or manipulate the emotions of others. Although Hochschild offers examples of such emotional labor undertaken both by women and men, some professions in which women predominate are saturated with emotional labor. Hochschild notes that female flight attendants, for instance, are subject to a wide array of emotional expectations vis-à-vis air travellers (smiling, friendly banter, interest in travellers’ destinations or professions, etc.). Scholars have highlighted a number of ethically salient features of emotional labor (see Barry, Olekalns, and Rees 2019 for a useful overview), but the phenomenon has been subject to little systematic philosophical analysis. Hochschild primarily emphasizes the detrimental effects of emotional labor on workers themselves, arguing that it can estrange workers from their own emotions and lead to struggles to identify or express authentic emotion both within and outside the workplace. Furthermore, when emotional labor results in employees’ “surface acting,” that is, displaying emotions at odds with their own internal feelings, employees’ health suffers. Other ethical concerns are more interpersonal — for example, that emotional labor is deceptive or lacks integrity. Barry, Olekalns, and Rees (2019) offer a useful starting point by noting that emotional labor raises the prospect of conflicts between workers’ rights and the rights of their employers, between workers’ rights and workers’ duties, and between employer rights and employer duties.

A number of social commentators have predicted that economic and technological trends will soon culminate in societies become increasingly ‘post-work,’ that is, far fewer individuals will engage in paid work, work hours will dramatically decrease, and work will have a far smaller role among individuals’ values or concerns.(Frey and Osborne 2013, Thompson 2015, Brynjolofsson and McAfee 2014). Whether this prospect should be welcomed or avoided depends to a large extent on issues addressed earlier in this article: how good work in fact is, whether there are other avenues for attaining the goods associated with work, etc.

Some welcome a post-work future as liberating (Livingston 2016, Chamberlain 2018, James 2018, Danaher 2019), arguing that diminutions in the centrality of work will afford us greater leisure, freedom, or community, especially if activities such as play or the appreciation of the natural worlds supplant work. Others worry that the decline of work will deprive us of a central arena in which to realize goods central to our natures (Deranty 2015) or will instigate high levels of inequality or economic distress (Frase 2016). Others express concern about individuals’ ability to psychologically transition from a work-centred to a work-optional society (Cholbi 2018b).

Work and labor bear intrinsic philosophical interest. But their centrality to the human condition also entail that work and labor intersect with still broader philosophical questions about the human good and the just organization of human societies. Ongoing and anticipated changes to the world of work should provide rich fodder for philosophical inquiry in coming decades. Philosophy is likely to have a special role to play in addressing what Appiah (2021:7) has called the “hard problem,” to determine “how to produce the goods and services we need, while providing people with income, sociability, and significance.”

• Adorno, Theodor, 2001. “ Free Time,” in J.M. Bernstein (ed.), The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture , London:Routledge, pp. 187–198.
• Anderson, Elizabeth, 2017. Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk About It) , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Appiah, Kwame Anthony, 2021. “The Philosophy of Work,” in D. Sobel, P. Vallentyne, and S. Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy (Volume 7), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.
• Applebaum, Herbert, 1992. The Concept of Work: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern , Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Arendt, Hannah, 1958. The Human Condition , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Barry, Bruce, Olekalns, Mara, and Rees, Laura, 2019. “An Ethical Analysis of Emotional Labor,” Journal of Business Ethics , 160: 17–34.
• Beadle, Ron, and Knight, Kelvin, 2012. “Virtue and Meaningful Work,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 22: 433–450.
• Becker, Lawrence C., 1980. “The Obligation to Work,” Ethics , 91: 35–49
• Black, Bob, 1985. “The Abolition of Work,” in The Abolition of Work and Other Essays , Port Townsend: Loompanics Unlimited, pp. 17–34.
• Boatright, J.R., 2010, “Executive Compensation: Unjust or Just Right?,” in G.G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 161–201.
• Borman, D.A., 2017. “Contractualism and the Right to Strike,” Res Publica , 23: 81–98.
• Bowie, Norman E., 1998. “A Kantian Theory of Meaningful Work,” Journal of Business Ethics , 17: 1083–1092.
• Breen, Keith, 2007 “Work and Emancipatory Practice: Towards a Recovery of Human Beings’ Productive Capacities,” Res Publica , 13: 381–414.
• Brudney, Daniel, 1998. Marx’s Attempt to Leave Philosophy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Brynjolfsson, Erik and McAfee, Andrew, 2014. The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies , New York: Norton.
• Budd, John W., 2011. The Thought of Work , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Calvo, E., Mair, C.A., & Sarkisian, N., 2015. “Individual Troubles, Shared Troubles: The Multiplicative Effect of Individual and Country-level Unemployment on Life Satisfaction in 95 Nations (1981–2009),” Social Forces , 93: 1625–53.
• Care, Norman S., 1984. “Career Choice,” Ethics , 94: 283–302.
• Chamberlain, James A., 2018. Undoing Work, Rethinking Community , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Cholbi, Michael, 2018a. “The Duty to Work,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 21: 1119–1133.
• –––, 2018b. “The Desire to Work as an Adaptive Preference,” Autonomy , 04 (July). [ Cholbi 2018b available online ]
• –––, 2020. “The Ethics of Choosing Jobs and Careers,” in B. Fischer (ed.), College Ethics , 2 nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 878–889.
• Clark, Samuel, 2017. “Good Work,” Journal of Applied Philosophy , 34: 61–73.
• Cohen, G.A., 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Dahl, Robert A., 1986. A Preface to Economic Democracy , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Danaher, John, 2019. Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World Without Work , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Davis, Joseph E., 2003. “The Commodification of Self,” Hedgehog Review , Summer [ Davis 2003 available online ].
• De Botton, Alain, 2010. The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work , New York: Penguin.
• Deranty, Jean-Philippe, 2015. “Historical Objections to the Centrality of Work,” Constellations , 22: 105–121.
• Elster, Jon, 1988. “Is There (or Should There Be) a Right to Work?,” in A. Gutmann (ed.), Democracy and the Welfare State , Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 53–78.
• –––, 1989. “Self-realisation in Work and Politics,” in J. Elster and K.O. Moene (eds.), Alternatives to Capitalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 127–158.
• Estlund, Cynthia, 2003. Working Together: How Workplace Bonds Strengthen a Diverse Democracy , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Fabré, Cecile, 2008. Whose Body Is It?: Justice and the Integrity of the Person , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frase, Peter, 2016. Four Futures: Life After Capitalism , London: Verso.
• Frayne, David, 2015. The Refusal of Work: The Theory and Practice of Resistance to Work , London: Zed.
• Gheaus, Anca, 2009. “The Challenge of Care to Idealizing Theories of Distributive Justice,” in L. Tessman (ed.), Feminist Ethics and Social and Political Philosophy: Theorizing the Non-Ideal , Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 105–119.
• –––, 2012. “Gender Justice,” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy , 6: 1–24.
• Gheaus, Anca, and Herzog, Lisa. 2016. “The Goods of Work (Other Than Money!),” Journal of Social Philosophy , 47: 70–89.
• Gilabert, Pablo, 2018. “Dignity at Work,” in H. Collins, G. Lester, and V. Mantouvalou (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 68–86.
• Gomberg, Paul, 2007. How to Make Opportunity Equal: Race and Contributive Justice , Oxford: Blackwell.
• González-Ricoy, Iñigo, 2014. “The Republican Case for Workplace Democracy,” Social Theory and Practice , 40: 232–254.
• Gorz, Andre, 2010. Critique of Economic Reason , London: Verso.
• Gourevitch, Alex, 2018. “The Right to Strike: A Radical View,” American Political Science Review , 112: 905–917.
• Graeber, David, 2018. Bullshit Jobs: A Theory , New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Gurtler, Sabine, and Smith, Andrew F., 2005. “The Ethical Dimension of Work: A Feminist Perspective,” Hypatia , 20: 119–134.
• Haney, Mitchell R., and Kline, A. David, 2010. The Value of Time and Leisure in a World of Work , Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• Hartley, Christie and Watson, Lori, 2018. Equal Citizenship and Public Reason: A Feminist Political Liberalism , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Heath, Joseph, 2018. “On the Very Idea of a Just Wage,” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics , 11: 1–33.
• Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J., 2017. “World Happiness Report 2017,” New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
• Hochschild, Arlie, 2012. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Holmes, Thomas, and Rahe Richard, 1967. “The Social Readjustment Rating Scale,” Journal of Psychosomatic Research , 11: 213–18.
• Hussain, Waheed, 2020. “Pitting People Against Each Other,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 48: 79–111.
• International Labour Organization, 2019. Small Matters. Global Evidence on the Contribution to Employment by the Self-employed, Micro-enterprises and SMEs , Geneva: ILO.
• James, Aaron, 2018. Surfing with Sartre: An Aquatic Inquiry into the Life of Meaning , New York: Penguin/Random House.
• Kandiyali, Jan, 2020. “The Importance of Others: Marx on Unalienated Production,” Ethics , 130: 555–587.
• Lis, Catharina, and Soly, Hugo, 2012. Worthy Efforts: Attitudes to Work and Workers in Pre-Industrial Europe , Leiden: Brill.
• Kavka, Gregory, 1992. “Disability and the Right to Work,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 9: 262–280.
• Keynes, John Maynard, 1930. “Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren,” in Essays in Persuasion , New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1963, pp. 358–373.
• King, M.L., 2011. “All Labour Has Dignity,” M.K. Honey (ed.), Boston: Beacon Press.
• Komlosy, Andrea, 2018. Work: The Last 1,000 Years , London: Verso.
• Levine, Andrew, 1995. “Fairness to Idleness: Is There a Right Not to Work?,” Economics and Philosophy , 11: 255–274.
• Lafargue, Paul, 1883. “The Right to Be Lazy,” in C.H. Kerr, trans., The Right to Be Lazy and Other Studies , Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1907, pp. 3–62.
• Landemore, Hélène and Ferreras, Isabelle, 2016. “In Defense of Workplace Democracy: Towards a Justification of the Firm–State Analogy,” Political Theory , 44: 53–81.
• Lindblom, Lars, 2019. “Consent, Contestability, and Unions,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 29: 189–211.
• Livingston, James, 2016. No More Work: Why Full Employment is a Bad Idea , Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1984. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory , 2 nd edition, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Mack, Eric, 2002. “Self-Ownership, Marxism, and Egalitarianism: Part I: Challenges to Historical Entitlement,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics , 1: 75–108.
• Malesic, Jonathan, 2017. “Parenting is Not a ‘Job,’ and Marriage is Not ‘Work,’” New Republic , 9 Aug 2017 [ Malesic 2017 available online ].
• Malmqvist, Erik, 2019 “’Paid to Endure’: Paid Research Participation, Passivity, and the Goods of Work, ” American Journal of Bioethics , 19: 11–20 .
• Margerison-Zilko, C., Goldman-Mellor, S., Falconi A., & Dowing, J., 2016. “Health Impacts of the Great Recession: A Critical Review,” Current Epidemiology Reports , 3: 81–91.
• Marx, Karl, 1844. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 , Martin Milligan (trans. and ed.), Mineola, NY: Dover.
• Maskivker, Julia, 2012. Self-Realization and Justice: A Liberal-Perfectionist Defense of the Right to Freedom from Employment , New York: Routledge.
• Mayer, Robert, 2000. “Is there a Moral Right to Workplace Democracy?” Social Theory and Practice , 26: 301–325.
• Michaelson, Christopher, 2021. “A Normative Meaning of Meaningful Work,” Journal of Business Ethics , 170: 413–428.
• Moriarty, Jeffrey, 2009. “Rawls, Self-Respect, and the Opportunity for Meaningful Work,” Social Theory and Practice , 35: 441–459.
• –––, 2020. “What’s in a Wage? A New Approach to the Justification of Pay,” Business Ethics Quarterly , 30: 119–137.
• Morris, William, 1884. “Useful Work Versus Useless Toil,” in Collected Works of William Morris , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, pp. 98–120.
• Muñoz, Cristian Pérez, 2014. “Essential Services, Workers’ Freedom, and Distributive Justice,” Social Theory and Practice , 40: 649–672.
• Muirhead, Russell, 2007. Just Work , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Nguyen, C. Thi, 2019. “Games and the Art of Agency,” Philosophical Review , 128: 423–462
• O’Connor, Brian, 2018. Idleness: A Philosophical Essay , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Örtenblad, A., 2021. Debating Equal Pay for All: Economy, Practicability, and Ethics , London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Pateman, Carole, 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pieper, Josef, 1952. Leisure, the Basis of Culture , A. Dru, (trans.), London: Faber and Faber.
• Pence, Gregory, 2001. “Towards a Theory of Work,” in Schaff (ed.) 2001, pp. 93–106.
• Reiff, Mark, 2020. In the Name of Liberty: The Argument for Universal Unionization , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rawls, John, 1996. Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Rose, Julie, 2016. Free Time , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Russell, Bertrand, 1932. “In Praise of Idleness,” Harper’s Magazine , October 1932. [ Russell 1932 available online ]
• Sage, Daniel, 2019. “Unemployment, Wellbeing and the Power of the Work Ethic: Implications for Social Policy,” Critical Social Policy , 39: 205–228.
• Sayers, Sean, 2005. “Why Work? Marx and Human Nature,” Science and Society , 69: 606–616.
• Schaff, Kory, 2001. Philosophy and the Problems of Work: A Reader , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• –––, 2012. “Democratic Rights in the Workplace,” Inquiry , 55: 386–404.
• –––, 2017. “A Right to Work and Fair Conditions of Employment,” in K.P. Schaff (ed.), Fair Work: Ethics, Social Policy, Globalization , London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 41–56.
• Schmode, Frauke, 2019. “What Difference Does It Make? UBI and the Problem of Bad Work,” in M. Cholbi and M.E. Weber (eds.), The Future of Work, Technology, and Basic Income , New York: Routledge, pp. 151–170.
• Schwartz, Adina, 1982. “Meaningful Work,” Ethics , 92: 634–646.
• Schwartz, Barry, 2015. Why We Work , Simon and Schuster: New York.
• Shelby, Tommie, 2012. “Justice, Work, and the Ghetto Poor,” The Law and Ethics of Human Rights , 6 December 2012. doi:10.1515/1938-2545.1068
• Smith, Adam, 1776 [1976], An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , E. Cannon (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press
• Stanczyk, Lucas, 2012. “Productive Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 40: 144–164.
• Suzman, James, 2021. Work: A History of How We Spend Our Time , London:Bloomsbury.
• Svendsen, Lars Fredrik, 2015. Work , 2 nd edition, London: Routledge.
• Tcherneva, Pavlina R., 2020. The Case for a Job Guarantee , New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Thompson, Derek, 2015. “A World Without Work,” The Atlantic , July-August 2015. [ Thompson 2015 available online ]
• United Nations, 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights . [ available online ]
• Van Parijs, Philipe, 1991. “Why Surfers Should Be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income,” Philosophy & Public Affairs , 20: 101–131.
• Van Parijs, Phillipe, and Vanderbroght, Yannick, 2017. Basic Income: A Radical Proposal for a Free Society and a Sane Economy , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Veltman, Andrea, 2016. Meaningful Work , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983. Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality , New York: Basic Books.
• Washington, Booker T., 1901. Up From Slavery: An Autobiography , New York: Doubleday.
• Weber, Max, 1904–05. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism , translation of Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus , T. Parsons (trans.), New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.
• Weeks, Kathi, 2011. The Problem with Work: , Feminism, Marxism, Antiwork Politics, and Postwork Imaginaries , Durham: Duke University Press.
• White, Stuart, 1998. “Trade Unionism in a Liberal State,” in A. Gutmann (ed.), Freedom of Association , Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 330–356.
• –––, 2003. The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Wright, Erik Olin, and Brighouse, Harrry, 2008. “Strong Gender Egalitarianism,” Politics and Society , 36: 360–372.
• Yeoman, Ruth, 2014. “Conceptualizing Meaningful Work as a Fundamental Human Need,” Journal of Business Ethics , 124: 235–251.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Frey, Carl Benedikt, and Osborne, Michael A., “The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” , Working Paper, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford.
• Jean-Philippe Deranty, For Work/Against Work , Australian Research Council, “The Case for Work”.
• Autonomy , research institute focusing on the future of work.
• John Paul II, 1981. Labourem Exercens , papal encyclical.

economics [normative] and economic justice | ethics: business | exploitation | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on class and work | justice: distributive | life: meaning of | markets | Marx, Karl | Smith, Adam: moral and political philosophy | value: intrinsic vs. extrinsic | well-being

Copyright © 2022 by Michael Cholbi < mcholbi @ ed . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The Friedman Essay and the True Purpose of the Business Corporation

Martin Lipton is a founding partner of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in mergers and acquisitions and matters affecting corporate policy and strategy. This post is based on his Wachtell Lipton memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance by Lucian A. Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum here ); For Whom Corporate Leaders Bargain  by Lucian A. Bebchuk, Kobi Kastiel, and Roberto Tallarita (discussed on the Forum  here ); and Toward Fair and Sustainable Capitalism by Leo E. Strine, Jr (discussed on the Forum here ).

From a practical standpoint, the most significant part of the 1970 Milton Friedman essay in the New York Times was the headline: “ The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase its Profits .” For a half-century, that phrase has been used to summarize the essay, and alongside Friedman’s similar views in a 1962 treatise, also used in support of “shareholder primacy” as the bedrock of American capitalism. “Shareholder primacy” and “Friedman doctrine” became interchangeable. The Friedman doctrine was a precursor to, and became a doctrinal foundation for an era of short-termism, hostile takeovers, extortion by corporate raiders, junk bond financing and the erosion of protections for employees, the environment and society generally, all in support of increasing corporate profits and maximizing value for shareholders. This concept of capitalism took hold in the business schools and the boardrooms, became ascendant in the eighties and continued as Wall Street gospel until 2008, when the perils of short-termism were vividly illuminated by the financial crisis, and the long-term economic and societal harms of shareholder primacy became increasingly urgent and impossible to ignore. Since then, acceptance of and reliance on the Friedman doctrine has been widely eroded, as a growing consensus of business leaders, economists, investors, lawyers, policymakers and important parts of the academic community have embraced stakeholder capitalism as the key to sustainable, broad-based, long-term American prosperity. This is illustrated by the World Economic Forum’s request that I prepare a new paradigm for corporate governance which it published in 2016 and its issuance of the 2020 Davos Manifesto embracing stakeholder and ESG (environment, social and governance) principles, as well as the 2019 abandonment of shareholder primacy and adoption of stakeholder governance by the Business Roundtable. So too, has corporate purpose and stakeholder and ESG governance been embraced by index fund managers BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and other major investors.

It should be noted that some well-known business people, economists and lawyers reject stakeholder governance and adhere to the Friedman doctrine.

Also in commemoration of the 50 th anniversary of the essay, four prominent senior fellows of the Hoover Institute, George P. Shultz, Michael J. Boskin, John F. Cogan and John B. Taylor published an article in the Hoover Digest, the title of which aptly summarizes their opinion: Cheated by Collectivism: Businesses do good by benefitting their shareholders, not pursuing a phantom of “social responsibility.” In an article entitled The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance , Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita of the Harvard Law School called the Business Roundtable embrace of stakeholder governance naïve and marshalled a litany of empirical, historical and human greed arguments in derogation of stakeholder governance. As might be expected, compelling arguments rejecting the Bebchuk arguments soon appeared. Alison Taylor and Dina Medland in an article entitled The Illusion Of Reasoning , sum up the arguments for stakeholder governance and against preserving Milton Friedman’s fifty-year-old doctrine:

In fact, simplistic prioritisation of shareholder interests ceased to be an option some time ago. Shareholders today are not a monolithic interest bloc, and business leaders have some choices about which owners they seek to attract. Many shareholders today argue enthusiastically for longer time horizons and more substantive measurement of environmental, social and governance issues. More broadly, the value of intangible assets such as reputation, innovation and network effects now constitute 61% of the value of the S&P500. Return on investment takes longer, and is harder to measure. Any attempt to navigate successfully through this new environment is inherently “contestable”, too. It is the idea that a focus on shareholder value negates any need to consider complex trade-offs that is naïve and unrealistic, not the BRT statement.

In addition to these reasons for rejecting the Friedman doctrine, the fundamental structure of the corporate world has changed dramatically since the 1960s. Today the three index fund managers control on average in the aggregate about 20% of the shares of the listed corporations. Together with ten other asset managers, they have voting control of most corporations. Also, Friedman assumed that shareholders wanted primacy and had no concern for the other stakeholders.

Clearly that is not the situation today. Stakeholder and ESG governance and sustainable long-term investment are today embraced by the holders of a clear majority of the shares of most corporations.

Recent events—notably including the pandemic, its disparate impact on various segments of society, and the focus on inequality and injustice arising in the wake of the death of George Floyd—have accelerated the conversation on corporate purpose and the debate about stakeholder governance. The result has been substantial, salutary reflection about the role that corporations play in creating and distributing economic prosperity and the nexus between value and values.

For my part, I have supported stakeholder governance for over 40 years—first, to empower boards of directors to reject opportunistic takeover bids by corporate raiders, and later to combat short-termism and ensure that directors maintain the flexibility to invest for sustainable long-term growth and innovation. I continue to advise corporations and their boards that—consistent with Delaware law—they may exercise their business judgment to manage for the benefit of the corporation and all of its stakeholders over the long term. That it is the corporation, qua corporation, that commands the fiduciary duty of its board of directors.

In looking beyond the disruption caused by the pandemic, boards and corporate leaders have an opportunity to rebuild with the clarity and conviction that come from articulating a corporate purpose, anchored in a holistic understanding of the key drivers of their business, the ways in which those drivers shape and are shaped by values, and the interdependencies of multiple stakeholders who are essential to the long-term success of the business.

This opportunity leads me to reiterate and refine a simple formulation of corporate purpose and objective, as follows:

The purpose of a corporation is to conduct a lawful, ethical, profitable and sustainable business in order to ensure its success and grow its value over the long term. This requires consideration of all the stakeholders that are critical to its success (shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers and communities), as determined by the corporation and its board of directors using their business judgment and with regular engagement with shareholders, who are essential partners in supporting the corporation’s pursuit of its purpose. Fulfilling this purpose in such manner is fully consistent with the fiduciary duties of the board of directors and the stewardship obligations of shareholders.

This statement of corporate purpose is broad enough to apply to every business entity, but at the same time supplies clear guideposts for action and engagement. The basic objective of sustainable profitability recognizes that the purpose of for-profit corporations includes creation of value for investors. The requirement of lawful and ethical conduct ensures generally recognized standards of corporate social compliance. Going further, the broader mandate to take into account all corporate stakeholders, including communities, is not limited to local communities, but comprises society and the economy at large and directs boards to exercise their business judgment within the scope of this broader responsibility. The requirement of regular shareholder engagement acknowledges accountability to investors, but also the shared responsibility of shareholders for responsible long-term corporate stewardship. Essentially, this is The New Paradigm for corporate governance issued in 2016 by the World Economic Forum.

Fulfilling this concept of purpose will require different approaches for each corporation depending on its industry, history, regulatory environment, governance and other factors. I expect that board committees—focusing on stakeholders, ESG issues and the stewardship obligations of shareholders—will be useful or even necessary for some companies. But for all the differences among companies, there is an important unifying commonality: corporate action, taken against the backdrop of this formulation of corporate purpose, will be fully protected by the business judgment rule, so long as decisions are made by non-conflicted directors acting upon careful consideration and deliberation.

Executed in this way, stakeholder governance will be a better driver of long-term value creation and broad-based prosperity than the shareholder primacy model. Directors and managers have the responsibility of exercising their business judgment in acting for the corporate entity that they represent, balancing its rights and obligations and taking into account both risks and opportunities over the long term, in regular consultation with shareholders. Directors will not be forced to narrow their focus and act as if any one interest trumps all others, with potentially destructive consequences, but will instead have latitude to make decisions that reasonably balance the interests of all constituencies in a manner that will promote the sustainable, long-term business success of the corporation as a whole. Most important of all, The New Paradigm will obviate the need for legislation regulating corporations and institutional investors and asset managers that would quickly lead to state corporatism. For a fuller discussion of avoiding legislation and saving American capitalism, see my 2019 essay, It’s Time To Adopt The New Paradigm .

The current focus on the purpose of the corporation is important and welcome. However, corporate institutions operate as part of an ecosystem. As I said in my recent Barron’s article (Companies Can’t Solve Social Problems Without Coordination, 26 August 2020), to result in the kind of transformation now needed, work on corporate purpose also needs to be underpinned by a sense of systemic purpose. In financial markets, at least, that can be provided by what Mark Carney has referred to as the ‘social licence for financial markets’, as I explain in my recent book on that topic for which he wrote the foreword (Palgrave Macmillan 2020).

Milton Friedman did not talk about ‘social licence’. But in saying that business should be run ‘in accordance with [shareholders’] desires which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of society, both those embodied in law and in ethical custom’ he was reaching towards it. Basic: foundational, essential, fundamental. If business does not nourish the ‘basics’ on which social systems rest, and business also therefore depends, everyone suffers including, ultimately, business.

It is 15 years since I wrote the Freshfields Report debunking the City’s interpretation and that of their legal advisers of Megarry’s judgement in Cowan v. Scargill (as he himself had done so in 1989 for those who had bothered to follow his writings)that it was unlawful for pension fund trustees to take ESG considerations into account in their investment decision-making. In so doing, I stirred up a hornet’s nest both within Freshfields and in the financial sector. It is difficult to give up short-term financial ambitions. I recall a number of very difficult conversations based on the impact of our findings. The Law Commission subsequently backed my team and me to the hilt.

I have few heroes in life but Megarry(the authority on the Rent Acts) was one and Martin Lipton was two. David you are in danger of being deified. Best of luck.

Supported By:

Subscribe or Follow

Program on corporate governance advisory board.

• William Ackman
• Peter Atkins
• Kerry E. Berchem
• Richard Brand
• Daniel Burch
• Arthur B. Crozier
• Renata J. Ferrari
• John Finley
• Carolyn Frantz
• Andrew Freedman
• Byron Georgiou
• Joseph Hall
• Jason M. Halper
• David Millstone
• Theodore Mirvis
• Erika Moore
• Morton Pierce
• Philip Richter
• Elina Tetelbaum
• Marc Trevino
• Steven J. Williams
• Daniel Wolf

HLS Faculty & Senior Fellows

• Lucian Bebchuk
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Stephen M. Davis
• Allen Ferrell
• Jesse Fried
• Oliver Hart
• Howell Jackson
• Kobi Kastiel
• Reinier Kraakman
• Mark Ramseyer
• Robert Sitkoff
• Holger Spamann
• Leo E. Strine, Jr.
• Guhan Subramanian
• Roberto Tallarita

The Philosophy of Management Today

• Published: 18 October 2023
• Volume 22 , pages 493–503, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• David Carl Wilson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7098-3634 1 , 2  

414 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This essay reviews the recently released Handbook of Philosophy of Management , using it as a jumping off point to explore some potential confusions in contemporary philosophy of management. The handbook itself, comprising 58 articles and some 1,000 pages, is a milestone for the field. At the same time, it brings a few problems into sharp relief. I argue for more clarity about the distinction between the philosophy of management and the philosophy of management research. I make the case that logic as a de facto method for conducting inquiry may or may not be useful, while logic as a de jure standard for evaluating its conclusions is indispensable. I develop the view that neither management nor management studies is properly considered a science, or even an applied science. I contend that the seminal contributions of Alasdair MacIntyre are unjustly neglected by the field. And I advance the thesis that perhaps the leading issue for the philosophy of management today is the question of the purpose of management, pointing in some suggested directions for answering the question.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction to Philosophy of Management

I am grateful for comments on an earlier draft from Nigel Laurie and Anjan Chakravartty.

On one standard interpretation, induction characterizes any argument that aims to make probable—but not certain—its conclusion. On this account, retroduction and abduction are simply varieties of induction. This is developed in Wilson ( 2020 ), Chap. 16.

Were there more space, these features could be fruitfully linked to other related features of the mental: Brentano’s account of the mental as irreducibly intentional; Nagel’s case for its essential subjectivity; and Quine’s observations about the failures of substitutivity in attitude contexts.

Another conspicuous omission is Peter Drucker, not a professional philosopher but a deeply philosophical and humanistic thinker who is sometimes referred to as “the father of modern management.”

I affirm that I have no conflict of interest.

Agafonow, Alejandro. 2022. “Philosophy of Science for Management Theory, Practice, and Sci-fi Freaks: An Introduction.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 205–218. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Beadle, Ron, and Geoffrey Moore. 2008. MacIntyre, Empirics and Organisation: guest editors’ introduction. ” Philosophy of Management 7(1): 1–2.

Article   Google Scholar  

Benjamin Grossmann-Hensel and David Seidl. 2022. “Problematizing the Relation Between Management Research and Practice.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 183–202. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Bernacchio, C. 2023. Toward a constructive critique of Managerial Agency: MacIntyre’s contribution to strategy as practice. Philosophy of Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00229-4 .

Blaikie, Norman, and Jan Priest. 2022. “Management Research and Practices: Philosophies and Logics.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 235–264. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Blok, Vincent. 2022. “Xenophon’s Philosophy of Management.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 565–584. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Deranty, Jean-Philippe. 2022. “The Organization of Philosophy and a Philosophy of Organizations.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 981–1002. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Donaldson, Tom. 2022. “How Methods of Moral Philosophy Inform Business.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 677–692. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Eabrasu, Marian, and E. Lamy. 2023. Do managerial practices need philosophy? Philosophy of Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00241-8 .

Erkal, Hakan, and Wim Vandekerckhove. 2021. Twenty years of philosophy of management. How has it shaped the field? Philosophy of Management 20(4): 471–483.

Gare, Arran. 2022. “Philosophical Anthropology and Business Ethics.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 693–712. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Gare, Arran, and Cristina Neesham. 2022. “Creating an Effective Business Ethics.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 793–808. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas. 1971. The Entropy Law and the economic process . Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Griseri, Paul. 2013. Introduction to the philosophy of management . New York: Sage Publications.

Hennig, Alicia, and Matthias Niedenführ. 2022a. “Confucianism and Ethics in Management.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 837–850. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Hennig, Alicia, and Matthias Niedenführ. 2022b. “Daoism and Ethics in Management.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 851–862. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Küpers, Wendelin. 2022. “Aesthetics and Leadership.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 491–508. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Lamy, E. 2022. Is epistemology necessary? Philosophy of Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00209-0 .

Martela, Frank. 2022. “Is Moral Growth Possible for Managers?” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 883–896. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Neesham, Cristana, Markus Reihlen, and Dennis Schoeneborn. eds. 2022. Handbook of philosophy of management . Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Perez, Marybel, and Alejandro Agafonow. 2022a. “Discoveries in the Science of Organizational Economics.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 265–286. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Perez, Marybel, and Alejandro Agafonow. 2022b. “No Organizations for Today’s Einsteins.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 287–308. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Reihlen, Markus, and Dennis Schoeneborn. 2022. “The Epistemology of Management: An Introduction.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 17–38. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Spillane, Robert. 2022. “Weeding the Management Garden: Hume’s Fork and Action Nominalism at Work.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 959–980. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Tsahuridu, E. 2022. Reflecting on practice: an interview with Nigel Laurie. Philosophy of Management . https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00221-4 .

Vandekerckhove, Wim. 2022. “Aesthetics of Management: An Introduction.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 357–368. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Werhane, Pat, and David Bevan. 2022. “Adam Smith’s Moral Philosophy and Its Relevance for Modern Management.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 713–730. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Wilson, David Carl. 2020. A Guide to Good Reasoning: Cultivating Intellectual Virtues, 2nd Edition Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Wray-Bliss, Edward. 2022. “Critical Moral Philosophy and Management.” In Handbook of Philosophy of Management , eds. Neesham pp. 731–742. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Webster University, Webster Groves, Missouri, USA

David Carl Wilson

Webster Vienna Private University, Vienna, AT, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Carl Wilson .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Wilson, D.C. The Philosophy of Management Today. Philosophy of Management 22 , 493–503 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00244-5

Download citation

Received : 06 September 2023

Accepted : 09 October 2023

Published : 18 October 2023

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-023-00244-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Critical management studies
• Management science
• Management practice
• Logic of inquiry
• Alasdair MacIntyre
• Business ethics
• Social philosophy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research