Most of the features of modern Russian business are transient, determined
by the transnational character of the Russian economy and drastic changes
in the social structure, ideology and consciousness of Russian society in
general.  The influence of changes in the social-economic system has been
ambivalent for social morals.  However, reforms could stimulate their
improvement.  The recent development in the cultural environment of
business testifies to the emerging space of civilized business, which
manifests that it is practically useful for businessmen to be ethical.

Headnote:
ABSTRACT. Most of the features of modern Russian business are transient,
determined by the transitional character of the Russian economy and drastic
changes in the social structure, ideology, and consciousness of Russian
society in general. There are three main normative experiences in the
traditions of Russian business: a) the experience of preRevolutionary
business, specifically developed and practiced by the merchants of the
old-believers extraction; b) the experience of socialist economy, which was
more or less oriented to the public good and presupposed selfless
aspirations by the economic agents; c) the experience of legally and
administratively constrained private business and illegal shadow business,
which expected businessmen to be vigorous, industrious and enterprising.
The process of privatization was developed under the aegis of state,
specifically the state bureaucracy. The influence of changes in the
social-economic system has been ambivalent for social morals. However, the
reforms could stimulate their improvement. The recent development in the
cultural environment of business testify to the emerging space of civilized
business, which manifests that it is practically useful for businessmen to
be ethical.
Modern private business in Russia has become legal only since the late
1980s. This became possible owing to liberal reforms in the socialpolitical
and economic spheres of the late Soviet and post-Soviet society. For the
society as a whole, these reforms were inconsistent and rather destructive
than constructive. However, they gave real impulse to the birth of a social
force which became a new agent of economic activity.
From the historical point of view, private property in Russia today is too
new to make definitive conclusions about it. However, one may speak about
tendencies in the development of Russian business, keeping in mind that
most of its features are transient, determined by the transitional
character of the Russian economy and drastic changes in the social
structure, ideology, and mentality of Russian society in general.
1. Traditions and behavioral attitudes of Russian business
1.1. Pre-revolutionary business
In the pre-Soviet past, there were certain traditions of ethically and
socially responsible business in Russia. They increased after the abolition
of serfdom in 1861 and then were destroyed by the socialist reorganizations
after the October Revolution of 1917.
Ethical attitudes in business were especially strong among so called
"old-believers," i.e., members or extractors of religion faith succeeded
from Orthodox Church after Peter the Great's Church reform. They
constituted the elite of pre-Revolutionary Russian business. Many writers
have considered the old-believers' principles of rational and zealous
management a Russian analog of Protestant ethics. Old-belief merchants
regarded their business as a mission commanded by God. The principles of
life and behavior known as "Franklin Virtues", i.e., frugality, allegiance
to the pledged word, economy, modesty, and so on, were highly respected.
(Anderson et al., 1994) In this aspect Old-Belief essentially differed from
Russian Orthodox teaching, which did not elaborate specific business
ethics. However, in the OldBelief, as in Orthodoxy and unlike
Protestantism, labor and business as such still were considered
manifestations of mundane asceticism rather than means for sacred service
and salvation. (Zarubina, 1995) Service to higher social and state ideal
was much more significant for Russian businessmen of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, followed by individual service devoted to God. To
justify their activity, they appealed to the highest obligation. However,
it was obligation not toward God but toward Fatherland.
From Peter the Great until the second half of the 19th century, merchandise
and industrial business were developed under the aegis of the autocratic
state. Later, it was permanently under state supervision. Traditional
Russian elites aristocracy and bureaucracy - strongly opposed the
development of a third class. The development of capitalism also faced the
psychological opposition of patriarchal peasants and, broadly, patriarchal
psychology widespread in Russian society. Socialist criticism of capitalism
borrowed its spiritual energy mainly from patriarchal, intellectual,
bureaucratic, and aristocratic hostility against business as a cultural
phenomenon in general.
1.2. Soviet business
The communist ideology developed this sharply negative attitude of mass
consciousness towards business and business ethos for many years. This had
its seamy side in attitude towards the ethics of labor. The official
ideology was glorifying the worker. But only heroic, i.e., selfless, labor
was considered as the highest value. While this can be justified under
conditions of war or starvation, selfless labor cannot be a norm under the
conditions of peaceful, usual life.
Under the conditions of a state regulated economy, it was not usual to talk
about business ethics. There was no room for it. Because of state Communist
ideology, there was no need for any additional value justification of
economic activity. This ideology corresponded to a particular ethos and
appropriate business morals with a cunning double spring. On the one hand,
everything was submitted to the fulfillment of the economic plan and the
improvement of quantitative level of production. On the other hand, upward
distortions took place whenever possible, to demonstrate the fulfillment,
and over fulfillment of the plan and to secure bonuses. The expansion of
production was considered the primary and absolute criterion of
organizational success. The managers of state enterprises were not
interested in the questions of marketing, distribution, management or
finances, or the environment because those were the state's
responsibilities. Such was the picture on the level of management and labor
organization. On the level of individual participants of labor, everyone
also aspired to the growth of productivity. At the same time, everyone was
concerned in using state property so far it was possible in his/her private
interests.
Since the mid-1950s, different attempts were undertaken to improve
management and labor relations and to activate workers' personal interest
in labor results. In the 1960s the significance of the moral-psychological
environment of labor besides or instead of personal material incentive for
the growth of productivity became evident. In the 1970s the ethics of
business relations, i.e. personal aspects of labor relations (relations
between head and subordinates, between colleagues) became a popular issue.
The elaboration of this topic was determined by the rulers' understanding
of the necessity of activating the factors of increasing of labor
productivity by different means than material and ideological incentives.
1.3. Experiences of private and shadow business
Three kinds of marginal and intrinsically alternative economic practices
existed side by side (but not equally) with the state economy in the
U.S.S.R.: first, individual activity in production of foodstuffs and goods
(mainly agricultural) and services; second, the activity of small
collectives (artels) and cooperatives, and third, the "shadow economy",
concentrated in the spheres of light industry, trade and services.
Individual activity used to be relatively autonomous, being completely
based on the efforts and individual property of its agents. The "artel,"
collective economy, though based on collective (in this sense non-state)
property, was strictly controlled by state institutions. The shadow economy
was based on more entrepreneurial and efficient business. However since it
was dependent upon illegal usage of state material and financial resources,
or thefts, it was essentially parasitic by its character. Only according to
an extremely romantic approach it can be considered a kind of "popular
economy". It would be incorrect to assume that the decay of the state
economy made room for the extension of shadow economy. Since the latter was
parasitic and complementary to the state socialist economy, it went to
pieces as well. Compared with the non-regulated and criminal market, one
can consider the conditions of business in the shadow of the state
socialist economy leading a hothouse existence.
Therefore, we can distinguish three main normative experiences in the
traditions of Russian business. First, there is the experience of
pre-Revolutionary business, specifically developed and practiced by the
merchants of the old-believers extraction. The values of social
responsibility, and the moral and spiritual significance of business were
the most important for them. Second, the experience of socialist business,
which was more or less oriented to the public good and presupposed selfless
aspirations by the economic agents. Third, the experience of legally and
administratively constrained private business and illegal shadow business,
which expected businessmen to be vigorous, industrious, and enterprising.
2. New economic situation and social morals
The current Russian business ethos is determined by the transition of the
Russian economy and the peculiar features of this transition. The main
features are the following.
First, the transition to a market economy has been undertaken in a time of
deep and varied economic crises. It is not exaggerating to say that the
Russian economy is not passing merely a period of transition, but surviving
an extreme situation. One can follow different crises within the current
economic crisis in Russia. These are: (1) the recession in production,
caused by structural transformation, usual during the transition to market;
(2) the crisis caused by the coincident decays of two huge geopolitical
superstructures: the Council for Mutual Aid (the economic organization
based on the Warsaw Pact) and the U.S.S.R.; (3) the deep structural crisis
of the Soviet economy, the first symptoms of which were revealed in the
early 1970s; (4) and the prolonged cyclic crisis stipulated by the delay of
technological renovation in the 1970s and 1980s.
Second, the crisis has been aggravated by the extremist Gaydar's reforms
(Sidorovitch, 1996). His critics argue that the reforms were mainly
oriented to stabilize the finances rather than production. The production
itself was suppressed by the reforms. As romantic liberals, Gaydar and his
team were too optimistic about the "invisible hand" and spontaneous power
of the market. The "shock therapy" of 1992 presupposed transformation of
the previous economic system and the formation of forces able to take under
their control the economic resources of the country, to help it out of the
economic crisis, and to tune the economy to a free market in a short period
of time. The previous economic system based on socialist principles,
developed in regard to overspread geographic space, oriented exclusively to
heavy and military industry and dependent upon transport infrastructure,
was destroyed, but not modified by the reforms. Production was reduced in
heavy industry as well as in light industry and agriculture. By the end of
1996, Russia has preserved only 40-45 percent of the level of industrial
production of 1990.
During the first two years, the humanitarian aspect of reforms was almost
ignored. On the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Gaydar's "government
of reforms" in October 1996, most of the members of that government shared
in the press their understanding of the first attempts to turn Russia to
the market economy. Many of them expressed their regret concerning the lack
of attention they paid to the human factor of sever economic changes, and
later on the government only declared its concern of ordinary people living
conditions. The terrible fall in incomes and level of life was not balanced
in people's eyes by positive results of reforms. Disparity in income in
Russia has become the highest in the world.
It is evident now that a new social stratum of businesspeople whose wealth
is based on financial and trade operations has emerged. Unrestricted
liberalization of prices, extraordinary and closed to public privatization
and the use of budget and monetary measures as the primary of fighting
inflation and stagnation, caused the speculative (in Max Weber's terms)
character of new Russian business. New capitals have been constituted at
the expense of uncontrolled export of mineral resources. The procedure of
distribution of export licenses at the beginning was purposefully confused
by the legislators and high level bureaucracy. The unclear system of
preferences which reminded the former Soviet privileges was surely unfair.
The distribution of export licenses is unclear and probably unfair. Private
and corporate interests of exporters prevail over national priorities.
However, because of objective civic, legal, and economic conditions,
private business has no real interest in the growth of production and
longterm investments. Even if private business were ready to take
responsibility for the new economy, the state, in the person of government
and fiscal institutions, by the mere order of state regulations in
finances, would not allow it to fulfill this commitment. Since cumbrous
state apparatus has survived in Russia, which consists of 24 federal
ministries and 69 equal to them by status committees and departments and 1
million officers.
Third, to understand the Russian transition to the market it is essential
to realize that the process of privatization was developed under the aegis
of state, specifically the state bureaucracy. All forms of economic
activity are also self-seeking and illegally controlled by a corrupted
bureaucracy from the top and by Mafia, quasi-Mafia, or legal social and
state structures "from the side." Because of an undeveloped legal system,
the state is unable to guarantee businessperson's personal and material
security. Moreover, the most complicated and sharp conflicts in business
are usually resolved by criminal "mediator." From their own side criminals
are interested in preserving contradictions and conflicts in business, and
they provoke or manufacture conflicts to turn them to their advantage and
to redistribute income for their own benefit. It is almost impossible for
small business to survive under the pressure of contradictory laws and
regulations, bureaucracy, and criminals. By the summer 1996, the share of
shadow economy in Russian gross internal output was about 40 percent; (see
Kakotkin, 1996).
Owing to perestroyka and then post-Soviet economic reforms, Russian has
become significantly more open to the world. However, forms and prospects
of globalization in this country are also determined by its general
economic and social conditions. There are several faces of globalization in
Russia today. The first one is the "natural" internationalization of life,
attitudes, and knowledge, owing to the removal of the "Iron Curtain." This
is manifested in: free curriculum of information, ideas and images,
particularity displayed in the development of email and electronic
networks, embarking most of the university and academic centers of the
broadcast of dozens of soap operas on TV; b) growing possibilities for
professional and business contacts and cooperation; c) growing variety of
imported foods and goods are available at the market; d) possibility to
travel abroad, etc. The second one is economic modernization, for the most
part as capitalization. The third one is that capitalization has been
developed under the conditions of deep general economic crisis and, hence,
is concomitant by shape inflation, reduction of social programs, and
impoverishment of millions of people. Besides, the privatization has been
undertaken mainly in bureaucratic forms.
The fourth one, correlated to the first, is Westernizing and Americanizing
by which internalization is exhausted. For intellectuals this is
association with the domination of pop-culture and oppression of classical
cultural standards. The "invasion" of Western values, symbols, and labels
and the seeming retreat of the national ones is aggravated by the collapse
of the Soviet ideology and by the evident weakness of slowly reanimating
traditional values, inherent to the various ethic cultures and confessions
of Russian. However, the latter is likely a temporal effect stipulated, on
one hand, by the circumstance that seized upon the fruit, forbidden for
decades, and on the, other hand by the first impression from the appearance
of something unknown and alien. Meanwhile, the question is opened whether
modernization can take place in a other than Westernizing forms, for it
presupposes the development of finance and technologies, civilized means of
government, and civic control on it, i.e. that what was invented by the
West and spread out over the world from the West.
The shift in conditions and the "rules" of living have compelled many
Russians into selfmanagement of their own lives and created conditions for
initiatives in social and economic activities. However, the reforms of the
first three years were developed in such a way that only a few people could
save enough to increase their practical interests. Inequality in starting
positions has affected people's status greatly.
Privatization as a whole appeared to become mainly bureaucratic. The "first
wave" of business occurred in 1988-1991, when the system of state economics
still remained, though shackled. The success of "first wave" businessmen
was stipulated mainly by such "natural" virtues as energetic industry,
creativity, sharpness, and a thirst for risk (clearly associated with
useful connections). The businessmen of the "second wave" appeared in
1992-1993. They mainly originated from Party and state officials, or
nomenklatura. They based their business on old connections and acquired
direct access to privatizing state property.
So managers (of enterprises and commodities), officials of ministries and
departments as well as Communist Party officials appeared to be more
"lucky" in the redistribution of state (in fact national) property by the
force of circumstances, i.e. as possessors of appropriate connections and
operators of material and structural resources. The appropriate connections
under the lack of vigorous legal regulations and control can secure any
kind of economic activity. Thus the Soviet nomenklatura has maintained its
power and only changed its modality. Intellectuals and technical
specialists are in the second place among Russian businessmen. Special
information and the skills of intellectual, creative and innovative work is
their initial capital. Peasants are the least dynamic in this respect (see
Chernysh, 1994).
Inequality of possibilities for different agents of business was maintained
for a long time. In 1992-1994 two different systems of credit and taxation
were functioning in Russia. The state, still the biggest owner, sponsored
the state enterprises by establishing the regime of highest favor and
almost ignored private enterprises. Unjustified privileges in credits and
taxes provoked a double standard in the economy. Moreover, they provoked
the corruption of economic relations. To obtain privileged credit, one had
very often to bribe high level officials. In turn the privileged credits
gained by state institutions were very often used for financial investment
at commercial rates rather than for investments and enterprise development.
Many of the state enterprises have maintained their dependence on this
system.
By the number and volume of taxes, Russia occupies the first place in the
world (there are 27 federal taxes and about 70 kinds of local taxes); for
instance, the profit-tax reaches the figures of 85-90 percent what is more
than twice higher than the average in the world. The current system of
taxation is both unjust and burdensome. It hampers investments and the
reconstruction of production. It pushes businesspeople to hide profits and
escape taxes. Hence it condemns business to illegitimate existence.
It would be wrong to propose that drastic changes in the social-economic
system were fruitful for social morals. However, the reforms in the economy
and - what is more significant - in the law could stimulate their
improvement. For accomplishing this, the process of transition should have
been secured with effective legal mechanisms to provide appropriate
conditions for development of productive business.
3. The prospects of socially responsible business
Though there are no evident positive changes in real conditions of life,
the number of people optimistic about their personal prospects in the near
close future has increased. This growth is determined not by the
psychological and functional adaptation of people to the changeable
conditions of life, but the decrease of people's dependent expectations on
the state as the patron and guarantor of social wealth. People are more
oriented towards their own personal, professional, financial, social, etc.
possibilities. A relatively homogeneous consumer environment has appeared
in Russia for the first time after decades of the Soviet regime. To a large
extent this became possible as a result of stirring up private business,
particularly in trade and individual merchandise, as well as in capital
construction and services. The real independence of citizens from the state
is actually manifested in social activity of this sort.
For decades the Soviet state order was stipulating a client psychology.
With such a background, the importance of the growing aspiration of more
and more people to solve the problems of their life by themselves (at least
within the limits of their personal experience) cannot be overestimated.
Liberal reforms in Russia have given (at list formally) liberties for
citizens and enough autonomy of regions. However, the making and
development of local communities with their own self-governing institutions
and finances is still on the agenda. One of the most important results of
the reforms has been that people as self-determined agents, mainly
individuals and families, and rarely small associations, have become
empowered to solve some of their private problems independently of the
state. But the institution of local community in the above sense is still
undeveloped. Therefore the citizen's possibility to contribute to the
solution of public problems, like prevention of crime and pollution,
improving schools, and so forth, are not high enough. Meanwhile it is
easier for urban than rural citizens to sustain and overcome the problems
of any kind they run across. In this respect environmental problems appear
to be more consolidated than any others. As a result of the collapse of the
communist regime and partly liberal reforms, the strong hierarchical
structure of the Soviet society has been destroyed. The centralization of
the state power has weakened. The economy has become essentially
decentralized, what one can witness (as mentioned above) in the development
of more or less homogeneous consumption in the country. However, the
situation in this sphere could become better if the state promoted small
business and people economy. From the liberal point of view, low communal
(sub cultural, local) spirit in Russia today has been determined by the
lack of guaranteed local, or "bottom," municipal rights and liberties.
Local administration is almost not sovereign. Therefore, it is nothing but
administration, concerned with implementing the superior authority's
directions and interest; hence, treating people as merely subject and in
this sense, non-citizens. It is far to be the power of local residents.
Likely, the low civic spirit in Russian society is determined namely by the
lack of legal quarantines of any private activity, nondiscrepant to the
law, in spite of its substance: business-like, entrepreneurial,
intermediary, political, cultural and so forth. One faces here the vicious
circle: people are not concerned to sustain their own rights because their
interests are under developed. However, they fail to maintain their civil
interests so far as the society's legal sphere is amorphous. Only on the
basis for the law can these interests be legitimately secured against
either unjustified claims and violation from the side of other citizens or
the infringement of the state (specifically, in the person of its legal
institutions), or the Mafia. It is important to mention that communal life
has not been yet resurrected after so may years of totalitarian order. From
the communitarian point of view, so far local "communities" (even taking
into account their pervert nature under Soviets) used to be completely
tuned to the directions of the superior authorities, who through the decay
of Soviet political structure have lost their legitimacy regarding the
social-political context and their group identity regarding participants'
motivation. It is difficult to avoid condescension when speaking about the
traditional culture of Russian communities. The old cultural traditions
were for the most part washed away under Soviets. Those ones, developed
under Soviets, are no more appropriate under new time; at least they should
be re-understood and reinterpreted. For example, the farmers movement
appeared in the late of 1990s as an alternative to collective farms of the
Soviet type. Many farms were of non-peasant origin and were motivated by
individualistic and industrious norms. As such, they were severely opposed
not only by local bureaucrats who have kept control on the main means of
distribution, both materials and finances, but by common rural people, the
members of former collective farms (recently replaced by agricultural
cooperatives) .
Radical changes for the better have also occurred in business circles.
Taking into consideration the increase of freedom as a value among
Russians, one may presuppose that businesspeople were the first in Russian
society who realized the liberal content of this idea, unlike the typical
Russian understanding of freedom as anarchical willfulness or
insubordination and independence from anyone. According to recent surveys,
big business, unlike small and medium business, still remains
"semi-liberal," i.e. it practices non-liberal attitudes towards its
partners, expecting liberal tactics from their side. Nevertheless, Russian
business more and more constitutes an active, civic responsible and
selfconscious force for renovating society. This is proved by certain
tendencies within the business community.
"The Round Table of Russian Business" (RTRB), a kind of Western type
business club, was founded in the fall of 1993 by the initiative of the
well-known Russian businessman Ivan Kivelidi. It is a non-political and
non-economic organization called to stand up for common interests of
business and the growing middle class. In 1994 and 1995, RTRB initiated
annual congresses of Russian businessmen. The First Congress issued a
Statement condemning adventuresome tactics and fraud in business
(Zayavleniye, 1995). In the spring of 1995, RTRB appealed to the Russian
Government and pointed to the lack of collaborative and stable relations
between business circles and the executive branch (see Delovye Liudy, 1995,
No. 56, May, p. 11): RTRB has repeatedly taken steps to increase productive
collaboration between the authorities and private business. Kivelidi was
one among those who consistently and persistently argued for the
possibility of honest and responsible business in Russia. The biting irony
of fate was that he became another victim of assassination in the summer of
1995.
The positive changes in taxation and the state policy towards small
business in many respects have been determined by the dialogue initiated by
businessmen and developed by the state at the eve of presidential
elections.
Meanwhile, on the eve the Second Congress of Russian businessmen, RTRB
adopted a "Charter of Business in Russia" (see "Predprinimately" Ross,
1995). The Charter presents an elementary ethical code of business. Its
participants declare their rejection of violence and fraud in competition,
collaboration with criminals, and engagement in or support of "laundering"
dirty money. They express their intention to promote the maintenance of law
in the sphere of business. The Charter was criticized in the press and
business circles. Critics were concerned about its purely ethical
character. However, the elaboration of such a document (though far from
perfect according to a strict normative approach) and its signing by many
businessmen signify the visible changes in value attitudes of business. The
Charter has set up a certain standard of really cultural relations in
business.
Another factor was the dramatic experience of "Black Tuesday" of October
11, 1994 and "Black Thursday" of August 14, 1995 which shocked commercial
banks and brought some of them to bankruptcy. This experience pushed the
executive and legislative power to realize the necessity for laws and
regulations regarding financial operations in order to guarantee a certain
level of security. That experience also showed that partners may trust each
other if there is mutual openness of commercial information, rationality of
evaluative methods, and adherence to commitments. Professional business
mass media intends to promote higher levels of openness in companies'
information and popularizes the positive experiences of those medium
companies which could increase their profits on the basis of investments to
make their commercial information more transparent. In November 1995, the
Association of Honest Businessmen "Bureau of Future Business" (BFB) was
established by the initiative of the International Confederation of
Consumers to promote the development of partnership between business and
consumers. BFB intends to establish vigorous mechanisms of ethical
business. The corruption of ethical norms in business should be reflected
in mass media and professional publications, but it is not.
All these facts testify to the emerging space of civilized business in
Russia. This is a natural process for it results from the efforts by the
actual participants in economic relations and their civil responsibility,
good will, and rationality, manifesting that ethics is also practical.
These tendencies are a hopeful sign that business is developing the
elements of civil society as its own most appropriate social environment.
4. Business ethics activities in academia
4.1. Teaching
Business ethics as a research field is still in the making in Russia. It
started mainly as a teaching discipline within the curricula of industrial
sociology and/or applied ethics. As such, it was hampered by the
difficulties in teaching social sciences and humanities because of severe
changes in the ideological and outlook paradigm in the late 1980s rather
than by the problems in business itself. For the teachers and professors of
the schools of economy, business ethics became a godsend to replace old
fashioned and abstract Marxist social sciences.
Most of the courses in the mainstream of business ethics were of three
kinds: first, the courses about the etiquette of business communication and
the psychology of treating people (in the spirit of Dale Carnegie's
philosophy of making friends and influencing people); second, the courses
based on writings by Max Weber and Russian Orthodox philosophers like
Vladimir Soloviov, Nikolay Berdyaiev, and Father Nikolay Bulgakov; third,
the courses based on sociology and psychology of labor, management, and
conflict resolution. I know social and moral philosophers who have almost
switched over to teaching such courses as "organizational behavior," "stuff
management," "body language," etc., considering these as very close to
business ethics. As a rule the courses are mandatory.
Along with the recent changes in teaching ethics, the topics related to
business ethics have been incorporated into ethics curricula. There have
been no publications about teaching business ethics yet.
4.2. Institutional forms of business ethics
Speaking about centers, one should mention the Center for Applied Ethics in
Tyumen (East Siberia) established and directed by Professor Vladimir
Bakshtanovsky. He and his associates started the studies in applied ethics
ten years ago. Their main interest is in political and business ethics.
With Professor Vladimir Sogomonov (Vladimir City) they have published
several books on these topics. In 1994, Bakshtanovsky started the journal
The Ethics of Success.
There are a few research centers in Moscow and St. Petersburg, which are
state institutions or independent. A small center "Business and Culture"
was established by several fellows of the Institute of Philosophy in 1994.
The Center directed by Dr. Nikolay Kormin organized two international
conferences on "The Cultures of Business: Russia-West-East" (1993, 1995). A
volume of articles, devoted to the cultural aspects of business mainly by
Russians, is now being prepared for publication in 1997. Business ethics is
a matter of special interest for a group of scholars associated with the
Chair of Ethics and Aesthetics, Hertsen University of Education (St.
Petersburg): the group is directed by Professor Larisa Gromova. The Center
of Business Research was established in Plekhanov Academy of economy in
1994, and similar center is soon to be established by the Trade Chamber.
The project has been developed by Professor Peter Shihirev.
4.3. Research
A professional discourse in this field with continuous and developing
discussions, meetings, and publications has not yet grown up. As if they
started from the zero, most of the research and round-table discussions put
forward too general issues irrelevant to practical problems of business.
Business ethics as a research discipline has not become a subject matter of
academic reflection.
The basic problem is the lack of case studies, corresponding data, and
materials. I know teachers who provoke their mature students in business
schools to share their real experience and to discuss it during class.
However, it is difficult to develop case studies because the main source
here is oral history, but not the proceedings and descriptions of real
legal cases.
Another problem concerns the theoretical paradigm. The western (American
and German) writings in business ethics are the main source in developing
business ethics in Russia. Most of the Russian scholars' background in
economics was Marxist political economy; they need not only to explore
writings in business ethics but also to reeducate themselves in modern
economics as well as in theory of norms, decision making, and so forth.
5. Common tasks of business and academia in the field of business ethics
Business people today are not interested in publicizing the inner
conflicts, their resolution (or often destruction), corporate dynamics, the
motives and process of decision-making, etc. As mentioned above, social and
psychological issues of labor and management were relatively topical in the
late Soviet times. With the development of a cooperative economy and
private business with fantastic rates of profit, managers and businessmen
became no more interested in ethical discourse about human, value, and
normative aspects of business and the economy. Only those businesspeople
whose educational background in the humanities have been supportive and
interested in business ethics studies.
Meanwhile, it is quite plausible that the new tendency in the Russian
economy toward the reduction of the rate of profit which emerged in summer
1995 will make businesspeople take note of noneconomic factors in economic
activities. The declaration of the "Business Charter" in November 1995,
mentioned in the main text, was one of the manifestations of a growing new
mentality in Russian business. Business has to realize its social
responsibility to take the first steps towards the dialogue with scholars,
understanding that business ethics justifies normative restrictions for
business but that it does not give additional (cultural) means of
increasing profits.
Another question deals with scholar's motivation to the studies in and
teaching business ethics. For some of them, business ethics is a new
challenge and they like to try themselves in a new academic field. For
others, business ethics is a door to business itself, and opportunity to
become connected with business, to provoke research orders form the side to
business people, to convince them they have a need in different academic
services to make their profits higher. Very few are ready to teach business
ethics to criticize the morals of capitalism, enterprise, profit-seeking,
and consumerism. There is a perceptible lack of the very ethical motivation
towards studies and teaching business ethics among Russian scholars. In the
West business ethics started as an academic effort and movement of
intellectuals committed to "upgrade" and actualize the social
responsibility and virtues of business. However, to develop equal
partnership with business people, scholars should realize that they
themselves are socially responsible and independent, capital citizens.
6. Relationship to business ethics in other countries and regions
Russian scholars would be able to provide the international academic
community with adequate surveys of the development of national business and
its cultural roots and normative aspects. Interesting experience regarding
the psychological attitudes of Russians oriented to business could be
collected from the discussions of the cases provided by Western manuals in
business ethics.
In general, the situation for teaching business ethics can be improved by
joint summer schools, re-education courses for young scholars and training
workshops (mainly based on case analysis) for businesspeople. Sharing my
personal experience, I can say that even a few issues of EBEN I received
four years ago highly motivated my first steps in understanding business
ethics agenda and point, and oriented me towards current literature and
eminent authors.
Though the current Western literature is the main theoretical resource for
Russian studies in business ethics, the experiences of former European
post-socialist countries and the Third world developing countries are,
surely, important for understanding the process of market economy growth in
Russia. Unfortunately, this part of world national experiences has been
usually ignored.
Reference:
References
Reference:
Anderson, R. and P Shikhirev: 1994, "Akuly" I "delfiny": Psyhologiya i
etika rossiysko-amerikanskogo delovogo partnerstva ["Sharks" and
"Dolphins": Psychology and Ethics of RussianAmerican Business Partnership].
Moscow: "Delo" LTD, pp. 58-63.
Chernysh, M. F.: 1994, 'Socialnaya mobilnost v 1986-1993 gg. (Social
dinamics in 1986-1993)', Sociologitchesky Zhurnal 2, 133.
Delovye Liudy: 1995, No. 56, May, p. 11. Kakotkin, A.: 1996, 'Triumfalnoye
shestviye kriminala (Triumphal March of the Criminals)', Argumenty: Fakty
30, 8.
Sidorovitch, A.: 1996, 'Perehodnaya economika na rasputye [Transition
Economy at the Crossroads]', Nezavisimaya Gazette (1996, January 4), 4.
Zarubina, N.: 1995, 'Rossyiskoye predprinimatelstvo: idei i liudy [Russian
Business: Ideas and People]', Voprosy Economiky [Economic Problems],
Moscow, 7, 84-85.
Zayavleniye: 1995, 'I Kongressa rossiyskih predprinmateley. (The Statement
of the Congress of Russian Businessmen)', Delovye Liudy 53 (February), 4-5.
Author Affiliation:
Ruben G. Apressyan, Head, Department of Ethics, Institute of Philosophy,
Russian Academy of Sciences, teaches Ethics in Moscow Lomonosov University
and Leo Tolstoy Tula Pedagogical University. He has published several
books: The Experience of Nonviolence in the 20th Century, ed. (1996), The
Idea of Morality and Basic Normative-Ethical Programs (1995), Morality and
Rationality, ed. (1995), Ascenso a la moral (1991), Comprehension of the
Good (1986), and Ethical Sentimentalism: Shaftesbury and Hutcheson (1986).
Author Affiliation:
Institute of Philosophy, 14 Volhonka, 119842 Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: rapressy@iphras. irex. ru