From the Battlefield to the Boardroom
What just war theory means for business ethics
“Business is war,” observed Kevin O’Leary. Shark Tank’s “Mr. Wonderful” is known for his pungent aphorisms; this time he may be more right than he knows. For not only may deal-making resemble the cut-and-thrust of battle, but the ethics that govern aggression on the battlefield could inform conduct in the boardroom.
Just war theory is a doctrine of military ethics that traces its origins back to ancient India and Rome. With St. Augustine it seized the conscience of power, and Thomas Aquinas’ later systematic treatment cemented it in the Western tradition. Just war theory prevents aggression from spiraling out of control through boundaries and norms grounded in ethical principles.
Through these principles warring parties may realize a just cause for declaring war (jus ad bellum), proper conduct during war (jus in bello), and how to resolve hostilities after war (jus post bellum). Ethics such as these promote the common good by allowing virtue to flourish even in the toughest realms.
In business as in battle, we should want an ethos that seeks the common good. As Mitt Romney would say, corporations are people too, and as such their behaviors and incentives fall under the realm of ethics. There is no shortage today of ethical codes or legal frameworks governing business. But they to seem lack a universal framework grounded in moral philosophy, one that has coherently classified ethical harms in terms tested over the centuries first by ancient Greece and early Christendom.
For these reasons, we should examine just war theory for a business code of conduct. This treatment is not intended to be a systematic examination, but rather to serve as an introduction to more serious inquiry, which at present is limited to the writings of Michael Kinsella, a PhD graduate of University College Dublin.
Just wars rest on certain pillars, the first of which govern actions before a conflict. There must be a just cause to fight. Companies, similar to nations, have a right to defend themselves against, say, a hostile takeover. If a company is resisting an offer and yet the bidder persists, it is right to ask whether the latter is acting as an unjust aggressor.
The actors must also have legitimate authority. Decisions to go to corporate “war” can be made by a board of directors or managers of a company, whose roles exist formally and legally to represent the best interests of their stakeholders. They are more than simply powerful figures, but individuals who are responsible to seek the common good and protect the rights of those they represent.
As they consider taking hostile action or assuming a defense against aggression, corporate leaders must ask whether they have reasonable prospects for success. Economic resources should not be wasted on hopeless causes. Under circumstances in which the corporate interlocutors are unevenly matched, the more hopeless party should consider what other forms of resistance or alliances may be formed.
Moments of conflict must only arise as a last resort after all attempts at mediation or resolution have failed. The proper authorities in a company, in this case, would have tried every means available to reach a fair and reasonable agreement. Corporate conflict must arise when relations are at their absolute lowest point, which is hardly ever reached immediately.
Corporate actors must also possess the right intention, meaning that they are actually seeking a just cause and not simply using conflict solely as a means to a harmful end. Last but not least is the principle of proportionality, meaning that using force in business must not outweigh the good intended.
What about when corporate conflict has begun? Then three factors come into consideration under jus in bello.
Aggression must carry a certain distinction in its focus on legal combatants, meaning that ancillary stakeholders, communities, and families should never become targets in business battles. Proportionality ensures that actions must be subjected to a cost-benefit analysis. And necessity demands that actors use only the minimum amount of aggression necessary to achieve their objectives.
Just war theory has more recently been extended to actions permissible after a war, or jus post bellum. A few of these principles are worth considering for the realm of business ethics.
Settlements should be proclaimed by a legitimate authority, whether regulators, industry bodies, or well-respected lawyers. A reasonable assurance must be made that neither side’s rights would be violated again — warring corporate actors are to be seen as equal in status. Compensation may also be provided for those damaged through conflict, perhaps through layoffs or due to the severing of deals with wider stakeholders. And rehabilitation should ensure that corporate governance measures and boards of directors emerge stronger after a conflict scenario than before.
These are but a few of the ways just war theory may apply to corporate conflicts. They are principles, not checklists, formulated to promote the common good and ethical behavior as well as to preempt unethical actions. Just war theory exists in a space beyond regulation, even as it may serve as a template for corporations and regulators to align actions with ethics and profit with principle.
No ethical framework is worth its salt without buy-in from leadership. It must be made known to them that just war theory as a form of business ethics serves not only to protect their interests in moments of conflict, but to maintain a fair playing field when times are good. Perhaps even more importantly, its moral strength lies not with the heavy hand of government, but in the intangible cultures and capabilities that already make good firms great.
Conflicts arise in business as in every corner of human existence. When they do, rules and norms rush in. Just war theory in business ensures that while self-interest remains the rule, human flourishing maintains the end.
