Following the theoretical discussion, the
paper uses interview data from a larger study of the New
Zealand wine industry to showcase that in many cases indi-
viduals’ values and beliefs are fundamental to promoting
sustainable initiatives and practices in the business arena.
Virtue Ethics and the Practice–Institution Schema
The theory of virtue ethics has received increasing atten-
tion from business and other applied ethicists in under-
standing as well as guiding ethical business conduct. In
Evolution in the Society for Business Ethics, Koehn (2010)
notes that the recent movement in business ethics has
shown more interest in virtue ethics (specific individual
virtues or quasi-virtues such as integrity, trust, and justice),
and that ethicists have been ‘‘more willing to let the phe-
nomena suggest possibly relevant standards or virtues in-
stead of applying pre-existing frameworks to problems’’ (p.
748). According to Hursthouse (1999), virtue ethics, fol-
lowing the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle, is an ethical
approach that emphasizes virtues and moral character.
Distinct from other moral theories, as noted by Arjoon
(2000), virtue theory ‘‘grounds morality in facts about
human nature, concentrates on habits and long-term goals,
extends beyond actions to comprise wants, goals, likes and
dislikes, and, in general what sort of person one is and aims
to be’’ (p. 173). Contemporary treatments of virtue ethics
aim not only to extend the approach to collectivities but
also to promote a range of practices that give substance to
such labels as openness and integrity.
In presenting an ‘‘Aristotelian approach’’ to business,
Solomon (2004) argues that the key to the application of
virtue theory to business ethics, is the consideration of ‘‘the
place of business in society.’’ He proposes that we under-
stand the place of business in society from a virtue ethics
perspective in which business is viewed as ‘‘a human in-
stitution in service to humans and not as a marvelous
machine or in terms of the mysterious ‘magic’ of the
market’’ (p. 1024). Using the Aristotelian concept of polis
(the larger community an individual belongs to), Solomon
argues that an individual’s virtue and character are em-
bedded in, and in service to, the larger community. Busi-
ness excellence is characterized by not only its superiority
in practice but also its role in serving larger social pur-
poses. Paramount to such conceptualization is the recog-
nition of the human features and aspects of business. For
Solomon, then, there is a clear yet often overlooked linkage
between the ethics of business and the ethics of human
virtue. Business and organizations are consequently de-
mystified as human enterprises.
Echoing Solomon, Geoff Moore’s approach to business
ethics also features a key emphasis on the influence of human
behavior in the business world. Drawing extensively from
Alasdair MacIntyre’s philosophical approach to ethics,
Moore’s understanding of business ethics places a focus on
how an individual’s virtuous conduct can bring out the hu-
man aspects of business (see: Moore 2002, 2005, 2008).
According to Moore, MacIntyre’s practice–institution
schema is a valid framework in understanding virtue ethics
and its application to business. MacIntyre defines practice as
Any coherent and complex form of socially estab-
lished cooperative human activity through which
goods internal to that form of activity are realized in
the course of trying to achieve those standards of
excellence which are appropriate to, and partially
definitive of, that form of activity, with the result that
human powers to achieve excellence, and human
conceptions of the ends and goods involved, are
systematically extended. (MacIntyre 1985, p. 187, as
cited in Moore 2002)
Central to MacIntyre’s conceptualization of practice is the
concern for ‘‘internal goods.’’ In MacIntyre’s notion of
practice, simply put, internal goods are about a person
feeling good about what he or she does and that such
feeling of ‘‘good’’ must be based on, and derived from, the
virtue and moral character of the individual. Business as
practice, then, is the consideration of business as a form of
such practice, where individuals in business should strive
to realize the ‘‘internal goods’’ about doing business and
achieve excellence through virtuous conducts.
68 Y. Wang et al.
123
In MacIntyre’s practice–institution schema, institutions,
on the other hand, are concerned with ‘‘external goods’’
such as money, power, and success. For Moore (2002), the
institutions can be viewed as a collective mechanism that
emphasizes the functionality of business as a profit-ori-
ented social economic entity. The fundamental character-
istic of institutions of business, therefore, is the pursuit of
financial gains, often at the expense of social performance.
However, just as institutions have the ability to set con-
straints, they also have the potential to nourish virtuous
acts and promote ethical business conduct. This happens
when one or more of the mechanisms safeguarding the
institutions—the pursuit of ‘‘external goods’’—can find
incentives and rationales to justify and encourage the
pursuit of ‘‘internal goods’’ at both individual and organi-
zational levels. These incentives and rationales, justifiable
as good practice, then become the driving force behind
business engagement with issues beyond the financial
bottom line and the movement toward sustainable social
and environmental practice. In CSR and sustainable de-
velopment literature, the argument for using mechanisms
of the institutions as a promoter for sustainable practice is
generically referred to as the ‘‘business case,’’ as it essen-
tially turns on the financial incentive of such practice.
While institutions can sustain good business practices,
they can also have corrupting power when the ‘‘external
goods’’ (incentives or rewards) no longer justify these
practices.
