{"id":426,"date":"2019-12-02T12:35:57","date_gmt":"2019-12-02T17:35:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/?page_id=426"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:52","slug":"corporate-moral-agency-at-the-convenience-of-ethics-and-law","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print-2\/volume-17-special-issue-2019\/corporate-moral-agency-at-the-convenience-of-ethics-and-law\/","title":{"rendered":"Corporate Moral Agency at the Convenience of Ethics and Law"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The construct of corporate moral agency in both ethics and law is far too often regarded as little more than a means to an end, reduced to subtle semantics, attenuated fictions, and poor analogies. Much scholarship on corporate moral agency is used instrumentally to reach certain ideological ends in business ethics. In this article, we also bemoan the criminal law\u2019s perennial search over personhood and agency\u2014a search that takes a host of theoretical casualties and, ultimately, a reluctance to employ formal social controls in response to serious corporate wrongdoing. Jurists, legal theorists, business ethicists, and philosophers are all too eager to avoid any serious engagement with question of CMA.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2019\/12\/17-S-Caulfield-Laufer.pdf\">Keep Reading Corporate Moral Agency at the Convenience of Ethics and Law<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The construct of corporate moral agency in both ethics and law is far too often regarded as little more than a means to an end, reduced to subtle semantics, attenuated [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":129,"featured_media":0,"parent":391,"menu_order":9,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-426","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/426","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=426"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/426\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":427,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/426\/revisions\/427"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/391"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=426"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}